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 17th March 2020, 03:25 PM   #441
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,299
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post

It's been a while since I've looked at the claimed properties of the Abrahamic God. Certainly nobody in this thread has made any such claim. So why bring it up?
The claim at hand is that it is possible that some vague, undefined god exists. That is Psion's claim.

Are you OK with that?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 March 2020, 03:34 PM   #442
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,942
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't get that at all. The way I see it, the dragon is a rebuttal to specific claims that evolve into untestability through ad hoc revision. This includes specific claims about specific gods, as well as other kinds of woo claims.

I don't see the point of a generalized anti-theism rant. If you're not bringing a specific example to examine against the dragon, or addressing psion's quibbles about the dragon rebuttal itself, why post them?


It's been a while since I've looked at the claimed properties of the Abrahamic God. Certainly nobody in this thread has made any such claim. So why bring it up?


I've been here all along. Don't mistake me pushing back on your generalized rants for some defense of theism. I'm just not interested in them, is all. There's a lot of stuff I'm opposed to, without wanting my day to be filled up with people ranting about them. Sometimes it's nice to leave that animosity at the door, and have a more focused discussion of some aspect of rational thought.


This is why I don't like generalized rants intruding into focused discussion. None of this has anything to do with what we're talking about. You're inventing a whole position for me that I don't actually hold, have never expressed, and which isn't even relevant to the conversation we've been having.


Your nitpick is noted. I'm not taking it personally, though. Are you sure you understand the nature of my objection? Or are you actually (and ironically) trying to make this about me personally?
C'mon Prestige. It's about God. It's about the untestable unfalsifiable unprovable god claims. Yes it could apply to other kinds of woo. But we live in the US. At least I thought you did. The Abrahamic god claim is by far the most dominant woo claim in the US and for half the world.

The ad hoc rationalizations made in defense of the dragon in the garage is precisely analogous to those defending their God. Both the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran and the Hadith have preemptive verses scolding any kind of questioning. These are simply ad hoc rationalizations like with the dragon.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 March 2020, 03:46 PM   #443
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,850
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No way! None of the atheists in this thread are saying "meh". They are vehemently denying the existence of all gods.


Absolutely wrong. There may be a few so-called "strong" atheists who have a belief that gods don't exist, but most will agree that if you weaken the meaning of "god" sufficiently, so that it doesn't conflict with anything we know, such a god could exist.

The question is not whether the existence of gods is possible, but whether it is likely. I feel very strongly that gods are extremely unlikely to exist, but I freely admit that they could exist. Just like when I have just taken my keys out of the drawer, I strongly believe that the keys are not in the drawer, but I admit that they could be there if, for instance I had been distracted and put them back, or I had taken out a pen instead.
__________________
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 17th March 2020, 03:58 PM   #444
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,299
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I should have anticipated that if I started a sentence with "none of the atheists . . ." that an exception would come along that proves the rule.

You appear to be more level headed than some in this thread and I should give due recognition of that.
Let us just change the pace for the hell of it.

Let us just accept that I believe in a deity of some sort.

Do you believe in my deity?

Do you believe my deity is possible?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 March 2020, 04:29 PM   #445
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,613
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
The claim at hand is that it is possible that some vague, undefined god exists. That is Psion's claim.
If it is, I haven't seen it.

I assume he made it in some other thread that I haven't been following and have no interest in, and that his ultimate purpose in starting this thread is to discredit the dragon rebuttal and rehabilitate that claim.

But nothing about that claim or psion's motives in starting this thread affects my interest in the questions raised in this thread, about the nature of the dragon rebuttal and its application. If you're in this thread trying to head off psion's attempted rehabilitation of his claim elsewhere, take it up with him, not with me. I'm not here to defend (or attack) whatever claim psion might be making elsewhere. I'm agnostic about that claim.

If someone wants to claim it here, I'm happy to examine the claim in the context of the dragon rebuttal, since that's at least the nominal topic of the thread.

Quote:
Are you OK with that?
I'm not okay with you trying to preemptively gain my agreement in an argument I don't know about and little to no interest in. If you're not OK with psion's claims, take it up with him. If you're not OK with me being agnostic about those claims and not caring enough to address them just because you say they're out there... Well, you're taking it up with me. I can't fault you there. I guess my question is, so what? What do you want me to do about whatever-the-fudge slapfight you're having with psion in some other thread I don't know about? Can't I just have the one slapfight in this thread, if that's the extent of my interest?

Last edited by theprestige; 17th March 2020 at 04:32 PM.
theprestige 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 March 2020, 04:37 PM   #446
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,613
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
C'mon Prestige. It's about God. It's about the untestable unfalsifiable unprovable god claims. Yes it could apply to other kinds of woo. But we live in the US. At least I thought you did. The Abrahamic god claim is by far the most dominant woo claim in the US and for half the world.

The ad hoc rationalizations made in defense of the dragon in the garage is precisely analogous to those defending their God. Both the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran and the Hadith have preemptive verses scolding any kind of questioning. These are simply ad hoc rationalizations like with the dragon.
Okay, sure.

I'm not going to argue with your opinion of the importance and prevalence of God-woo in relation to the dragon rebuttal. I don't even dispute it.

I'm just saying, you don't need to go off about it just because I haven't bothered to put it front and center of every post I make about the dragon rebuttal.

Like I said, I've only ever seen it in other woo contexts. How does our conversation improve by you insisting I acknowledge the supposed primacy of the God-woo context?
theprestige 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 March 2020, 04:46 PM   #447
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,299
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If it is, I haven't seen it.

I assume he made it in some other thread that I haven't been following and have no interest in, and that his ultimate purpose in starting this thread is to discredit the dragon rebuttal and rehabilitate that claim.
Then you have no standing to claim anything on the topic at hand. Read the original,

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
But nothing about that claim or psion's motives in starting this thread affects my interest in the questions raised in this thread, about the nature of the dragon rebuttal and its application. If you're in this thread trying to head off psion's attempted rehabilitation of his claim elsewhere, take it up with him, not with me. I'm not here to defend (or attack) whatever claim psion might be making elsewhere. I'm agnostic about that claim.
You are, by dint of participating in Psion's thread, already taking it up with Psion. You have already posted rebuttals of Psion's claim. You are interacting with Psion by default of being in this thread, participating and providing rebuttals to his claims. You demand that I go ask Psion? You are talking to him and debating with him. Why should I vicariously ask anything? You are talking to the individual right now.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If someone wants to claim it here, I'm happy to examine the claim in the context of the dragon rebuttal, since that's at least the nominal topic of the thread.
Ask Psion. He claims it is not. Because reasons.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not okay with you trying to preemptively gain my agreement in an argument I don't know about and little to no interest in. If you're not OK with psion's claims, take it up with him.
Why? You have already taken up the issue with Psion.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If you're not OK with me being agnostic about those claims and not caring enough to address them just because you say they're out there... Well, you're taking it up with me. I can't fault you there. I guess my question is, so what? What do you want me to do about whatever-the-fudge slapfight you're having with psion in some other thread I don't know about? Can't I just have the one slapfight in this thread, if that's the extent of my interest?
Not if you engage the protagonist in argument without any awareness of the history. At that point you are on your own and devil take the hindmost.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 March 2020, 05:13 PM   #448
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,613
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Then you have no standing to claim anything on the topic at hand. Read the original,

You are, by dint of participating in Psion's thread, already taking it up with Psion. You have already posted rebuttals of Psion's claim. You are interacting with Psion by default of being in this thread, participating and providing rebuttals to his claims. You demand that I go ask Psion? You are talking to him and debating with him. Why should I vicariously ask anything? You are talking to the individual right now.

Ask Psion. He claims it is not. Because reasons.

Why? You have already taken up the issue with Psion.


Not if you engage the protagonist in argument without any awareness of the history. At that point you are on your own and devil take the hindmost.
Yes. Jesus. For ****'s sake please let me pursue my argument with psion on my own.

I reject utterly your attempt to drag me into whatever larger argument you think is going on here. Is there anything I can say to convince you that I have read your position, given it thoughtful consideration, and that you don't need to keep harping on it?
theprestige 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 March 2020, 05:30 PM   #449
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,832
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Yes. Jesus. For ****'s sake please let me pursue my argument with psion on my own.
Forum members can participate in any argument they wish.

There's no "my argument with psionl0 (or anyone)" in this forum.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by zooterkin; 19th March 2020 at 11:13 AM. Reason: Fixed member's name
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 17th March 2020, 05:37 PM   #450
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,942
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Okay, sure.

I'm not going to argue with your opinion of the importance and prevalence of God-woo in relation to the dragon rebuttal. I don't even dispute it.

I'm just saying, you don't need to go off about it just because I haven't bothered to put it front and center of every post I make about the dragon rebuttal.

Like I said, I've only ever seen it in other woo contexts. How does our conversation improve by you insisting I acknowledge the supposed primacy of the God-woo context?
It's honest. Why pussyfoot around? Correct me if you think I'm wrong. Shouldn't mankind be ruled by evidence?

Today, I heard a couple of old guys saying the Coronavirus was a fraud committed by Democratic politicians. Now I am not an epidemiologist and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn, so I fully admit I don't know. But I trust the individuals who made that their field of study.

I love science Prestige. Absolutely love it. I read physics journals and read about everything from the Big Bang to the structure of the atom and sub-atomic particles. Lately, I have been learning chemistry. Now I don't always understand all this, but if I keep at it, Im sure some of it will seep in.

Science is objective and self correcting. The process of peer review offers a level of scrutiny not found in other disciplines.

So I admit it. It makes my blood boil when it is mocked and unreasonable doubt is spread.

That half of Americans distrust the theory of evolution just stuns me. That the world thinks I'm untrustworthy because I don't believe in things with little or no evidence also grates at me.

I feel we are letting grifters and religious con men divide us and follow nonsense instead of following fact based evidence. And that's just wrong.

But hey, If there is credible reason to believe there is a dragon in your garage, then hot damn!
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 17th March 2020 at 05:39 PM.
acbytesla 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 March 2020, 06:52 PM   #451
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,527
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I could start a thread like "How important is it to deny the existence of gods?" if you were interested. It wouldn't be as straight forward as this thread though.

Well, I would say that step one of that would be to define what you mean by "gods". What is your definition? Then we can move on to whether it's important to deny or affirm or just shrug at that meaning of that word. So, what do you mean when you write "gods"?
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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 March 2020, 07:43 PM   #452
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,333
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Well, I would say that step one of that would be to define what you mean by "gods". What is your definition?
Yeah, good luck with that.

psion10 has so far studiously avoided actually stating or even being pinned down to a definition because... game over if he does!
__________________
"Covid-19 doesn't care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; its an equal opportunity killer" - Joy Reid

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 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 March 2020, 11:00 PM   #453
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,520
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, I'd say it gets even better than some people realize, because in China the Dragon King is worshipped as an actual god. If you ever wondered what's with the Chinese dragon processions in China, yeah, that's about that one specific god.

So essentially even if one wants to wiggle their way out of the analogy by some kind of "we were talking about gods, not dragons", well, I just proposed a dragon god. Now where is the evidence for the bearded guy in the sky, if you need evidence for my water dragon god.
Dragons are not gods. A 'dragon god' is not a dragon any more than a 'human god' is a human.

The difference between dragons and gods is that a dragon could possibly exist, whereas a god cannot, by definition.

Yes, even an invisible dragon that breathes heatless fire could theoretically exist.

Dragon
Quote:
A dragon is a large, serpentine legendary creature that appears in the folklore of many cultures around the world. Beliefs about dragons vary drastically by region, but dragons in western cultures since the High Middle Ages have often been depicted as winged, horned, four-legged, and capable of breathing fire. Dragons in eastern cultures are usually depicted as wingless, four-legged, serpentine creatures with above-average intelligence.

Gods on the other hand, cannot exist because they are inherently Supernatural, ie. outside of nature and the physical universe - which is just another way of saying non-existing.
__________________
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 17th March 2020, 11:07 PM   #454
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,299
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Dragons are not gods. A 'dragon god' is not a dragon any more than a 'human god' is a human.

The difference between dragons and gods is that a dragon could possibly exist, whereas a god cannot, by definition.

Yes, even an invisible dragon that breathes heatless fire could theoretically exist.

Dragon


Gods on the other hand, cannot exist because they are inherently Supernatural, ie. outside of nature and the physical universe - which is just another way of saying non-existing.
That's part of the problem. Psion is arguing for a "god" that IS naturalistic.

Or isn't. Depends which post he/she is replying to.

It is a massive Gish Gallop.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 18th March 2020, 04:05 AM   #455
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31į57'S 115į57'E
Posts: 16,289
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Well, I would say that step one of that would be to define what you mean by "gods". What is your definition? Then we can move on to whether it's important to deny or affirm or just shrug at that meaning of that word. So, what do you mean when you write "gods"?
I don't see why we have to "define" god. I know from experience that no matter how broadly I "define" a god, the automatic response will be "nobody believes in that god".

If you like you can say "anything that has popularly been worshiped as a god in the past or present". If somebody wants to put up a new "god" then let that person argue that it is a god.
__________________
"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 18th March 2020, 04:12 AM   #456
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,385
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Absolutely wrong. There may be a few so-called "strong" atheists who have a belief that gods don't exist, but most will agree that if you weaken the meaning of "god" sufficiently, so that it doesn't conflict with anything we know, such a god could exist.

The question is not whether the existence of gods is possible, but whether it is likely. I feel very strongly that gods are extremely unlikely to exist, but I freely admit that they could exist. Just like when I have just taken my keys out of the drawer, I strongly believe that the keys are not in the drawer, but I admit that they could be there if, for instance I had been distracted and put them back, or I had taken out a pen instead.
I don't think it's even about probabilities. It's just about the need for evidence.

I mean, let's say I claim there is such a thing as a flying pig. Or more clearly a flying member of the Suidae family.

There is nothing impossible about that claim. Membership in such a family is based on genetics, not size, and some form of flying or gliding has evolved more than once in the darndest species. It ranges from flying insects AND certain spiders, to fish, to flying birds, to bats, to 'flying' squirrels, to flying lizards (which evolved on a whole different path than birds), to flying frogs (ditto), etc. There's nothing to say that a small member of the Suidae family couldn't exist that has evolved some form of gliding.

It's also somewhat improbable, but not to the point of being ridiculous or anything. As I was saying it's not even that rare an evolutionary path. Even in mammals alone, while only bats are capable of POWERED flight, the list of mammals which can at least glide also includes lemurs, more than one species of rodent, etc.

So it's not improbable to the point where you could dismiss it out of hand.

The problem is just that it still requires evidence. I could build the same "no, you still can't find it there" scenario as for gods. E.g., no you didn't see it because it's nocturnal. Oh, you looked at night too? Well, it only lives in deep woods. Oh, you set up cameras all over your local woods? I meant only in the rainforest. Etc. And it not being a deity (nor a dragon) is still not an excuse.

Essentially the whole "no, you can't disprove it that way" boils down to the fallacy of trying to reverse the burden of proof. Basically what it literally means is "X is true, unless you can present evidence that it isn't, oh, and here's why you can't have such evidence." But the burden of proof doesn't work that way.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 18th March 2020, 04:31 AM   #457
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,131
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The thing about the god proposition is that theists almost universally make the definition of their god or gods untestable. He's timeless, he exists outside of time and space. If something exists for no time and and occupies no space, what the hell is that?
My god beats theirs. Yog-Sothoth exists between the spaces and dimensions.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 18th March 2020, 04:35 AM   #458
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,131
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't see why we have to "define" god. I know from experience that no matter how broadly I "define" a god, the automatic response will be "nobody believes in that god".
Well, that's why you have to define god. A definition that's too broad is not much of a definition, but it sure allows one to avoid committing to an argument.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 18th March 2020, 04:48 AM   #459
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 91,593
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't see why we have to "define" god. I know from experience that no matter how broadly I "define" a god, the automatic response will be "nobody believes in that god".

If you like you can say "anything that has popularly been worshiped as a god in the past or present". If somebody wants to put up a new "god" then let that person argue that it is a god.
Now I am not aware of the claims made for all the many thousands of gods that the religions claim or have claimed exist or existed however with all the ones I do know we know 100% that they do not exist. Whether that be the god of the RCC or Zeus. (And of course because those gods are by the claims the religions make not undetectable the dragon in the garage argument doesn't need to be invoked.)
__________________
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 18th March 2020, 04:50 AM   #460
Ulf Nereng
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Norway
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The thing about the god proposition is that theists almost universally make the definition of their god or gods untestable. He's timeless, he exists outside of time and space. If something exists for no time and and occupies no space, what the hell is that?
If something exists outside of time, then it didn't exist in the past, doesn't exist now, and will not exist in the future. And if it doesn't exist in space, then it exists nowhere.

(That's my opinion, at least, and I'm sticking to it!)
Ulf Nereng 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 18th March 2020, 06:44 AM   #461
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,560
We're in the middle of a plague, and my house just got hit with a 5.7 magnitude earthquake. Do i believe that a god is causing all this? No.
JayUtah 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 18th March 2020, 07:37 AM   #462
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 91,593
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
We're in the middle of a plague, and my house just got hit with a 5.7 magnitude earthquake. Do i believe that a god is causing all this? No.
Wait for the locusts before you make your mind up!
__________________
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 18th March 2020, 07:48 AM   #463
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 91,593
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
If something exists outside of time, then it didn't exist in the past, doesn't exist now, and will not exist in the future. And if it doesn't exist in space, then it exists nowhere.



(That's my opinion, at least, and I'm sticking to it!)
I still say all these assertions like "exists outside the universe" and so on mean nothing about the reality we live in. Before one can claim it as a property for their god they have to provide the evidence that it means anything.

They are mistaking correct English grammar for actual meaning. I can write "the starship accelerated beyond the speed of light" that does not mean it is possible to accelerate a starship beyond the speed of light.

It's all akin to the good old "we can imagine a perfect being, but for it to be perfect it must exist therefore it exists".

I would be happy to accept someone's "god is outside the universe" property when they can prove that "outside the universe' 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 18th March 2020, 07:58 AM   #464
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,825
"God exists, but like... *takes hit off of a bong* only like... outside the universe man" is just "God doesn't exist" with pretension and no intellectual honesty.
__________________
- "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
Old 18th March 2020, 08:21 AM   #465
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,560
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Wait for the locusts before you make your mind up!
This is Utah. Locust swarms are part of the lore. But the trumpet fell off the angel Moroni statue on top of the temple. I swear some days you just can't make this crap up.
JayUtah 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 18th March 2020, 08:56 AM   #466
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,942
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
If something exists outside of time, then it didn't exist in the past, doesn't exist now, and will not exist in the future. And if it doesn't exist in space, then it exists nowhere.

(That's my opinion, at least, and I'm sticking to it!)
Exactly. If something is timeless, it means it exists for no time and because existence is necessarily temporal then it follows that it doesn't exist. They have in essence defined God out of existence. How clever.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 18th March 2020, 09:07 AM   #467
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,942
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't see why we have to "define" god. I know from experience that no matter how broadly I "define" a god, the automatic response will be "nobody believes in that god".

If you like you can say "anything that has popularly been worshiped as a god in the past or present". If somebody wants to put up a new "god" then let that person argue that it is a god.
Well, if you don't define it, how can anyone address what you're talking about? Definitions are ALWAYS required to have a conversation. Otherwise you're deliberately building upon confusion.

So the question is, do you want an intelligible discussion or are you just interested in baffling bs?
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 18th March 2020, 09:32 AM   #468
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,560
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Definitions are ALWAYS required to have a conversation. Otherwise you're deliberately building upon confusion.
Which results instead in a different kind of conversation that starts out, "Haha, you guys are so biased and irrational, you deny the existence of things that are untestable and unknowable -- if only because because I refuse to define them." Does the dragon analogy hold? Yes, because Sagan covers this right on the first page of the chapter. It doesn't matter how you get to the point of having no testable effect. The result is no meaningful existence. So yes, we can rationally, presumptively reject belief in it.
JayUtah 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 18th March 2020, 09:40 AM   #469
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,613
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Forum members can participate in any argument they wish.
Tell it to abaddon. He's the one who's trying to gatekeep my participation.

Last edited by theprestige; 18th March 2020 at 09:41 AM.
theprestige 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 18th March 2020, 09:42 AM   #470
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,681
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Exactly. If something is timeless, it means it exists for no time and because existence is necessarily temporal then it follows that it doesn't exist. They have in essence defined God out of existence. How clever.
I don't think that's how the reasoning goes. The reasoning is that a creator of time and space would be incomprehensible, and would not be understood to exist through our understanding of time and space. Seems consistent to me, if not particularly useful in understanding the universe. Not useful, agreed, but not dismissable.

The OP asks if the Invisible Dragon is a slam dunk argument that should be presented whenever 'god' is mentioned. Having reread Sagan's chapter 10, I don't think it is. For starters, the hypothetical dragon owner claims to be willing to show this dragon, then admits that he 'forgot to mention' that it is undetectable. This is analogous to a theist being willfully dishonest. A charlatan. That, in my most humble of opinions, is a heap of straw with some ad-hom seasoning. The Invisible Dragon makes some stellar points about falsifiability, burden of proof, and other fallacious reasoning, but to do so it reframes the premises to be easier to attack.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
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 18th March 2020, 09:48 AM   #471
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,613
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
The OP asks if the Invisible Dragon is a slam dunk argument that should be presented whenever 'god' is mentioned. Having reread Sagan's chapter 10, I don't think it is. For starters, the hypothetical dragon owner claims to be willing to show this dragon, then admits that he 'forgot to mention' that it is undetectable. This is analogous to a theist being willfully dishonest. A charlatan. That, in my most humble of opinions, is a heap of straw with some ad-hom seasoning. The Invisible Dragon makes some stellar points about falsifiability, burden of proof, and other fallacious reasoning, but to do so it reframes the premises to be easier to attack.
I think another scenario is people who have so far held their beliefs uncritically, but are willing to take a critical look at what they believe.

"God is real."

"Are you sure? Let's look into this together."

"Okay."

"By 'real', do you mean, 'physical existence, I can see your God, walk up, shake his hand, talk to him', stuff like that?"

"Well... There was a time. But no, not anymore. There's miracles, though!"

"Let's look at some of these miracles..."

Etc.

But this a socratic, didactic process that requires both parties to act in good faith, in a spirit of dispassionate inquiry. Very few woo debates have that on either side, let alone both.
theprestige 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 18th March 2020, 10:01 AM   #472
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,681
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
...But this a socratic, didactic process that requires both parties to act in good faith, in a spirit of dispassionate inquiry. Very few woo debates have that on either side, let alone both.
I think this is the core of OP's question. Most theists (with a few exceptions) are pretty chill. A particular contingent of atheists are downright hostile and contemptuous. It's a little fascinating to watch the interplay, as I would have assumed the opposite in their respective demeanors.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
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 18th March 2020, 10:04 AM   #473
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,825
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Exactly. If something is timeless, it means it exists for no time and because existence is necessarily temporal then it follows that it doesn't exist. They have in essence defined God out of existence. How clever.
I've, in the past, called this "Trying to be clever by asking what's north of the North Pole" routine and stand by it.

"Outside Existence" in any form is meaningless gobbledygook.
__________________
- "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
Old 18th March 2020, 11:07 AM   #474
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,017
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Exactly. If something is timeless, it means it exists for no time and because existence is necessarily temporal then it follows that it doesn't exist. They have in essence defined God out of existence. How clever.
Quite true!

I think it was Nietzsche who famously said that "God is dead because we have killed him." In effect, he was saying that when us normal humans define just what God is, then defining God we have completed negated the idea that God is some sort of supernatural being because it is impossible for normal humans to define supernatural things.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow 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 18th March 2020, 11:09 AM   #475
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,832
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think this is the core of OP's question. Most theists (with a few exceptions) are pretty chill. A particular contingent of atheists are downright hostile and contemptuous. It's a little fascinating to watch the interplay, as I would have assumed the opposite in their respective demeanors.
A theist claiming theists are better people than atheists. Whoda thunk?
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 18th March 2020 at 11:10 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 18th March 2020, 11:23 AM   #476
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,966
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The wonderful thing about the American quarantine panic as experience in Utah is that while the diaper aisles are bare, the beer aisles are plentifully stocked.
I have heard that the guns and ammo sections have been wiped out.

OK, folks, I don't think that's going to work.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold 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 18th March 2020, 11:39 AM   #477
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,613
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
A theist claiming theists are better people than atheists. Whoda thunk? : rolleyes :
I'm pretty sure Thermal isn't a theist; but kinda proving his point here...
theprestige 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 18th March 2020, 11:40 AM   #478
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,825
Again we all know the discussion is only not "LOL atheists are big mean poopie heads" until the theists/apologists get argued into a corner and decided that's what the argument is. This ain't any of our first rodeos.

Simply existing without groveling makes atheists mean, we already know this.

We all know this game. The intellectual standards get lowered more and more and become more and more absurd and the moment one of the rational people shows the slightest bit of annoyance at it, the pearl clutching starts.

My grandfather didn't disown my father because Dawkins told being gay was a sin. He did it because the giant invisible sky wizard did. Spare me the "But da atheist are the truly intolerant ones" spiel.
__________________
- "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

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 18th March 2020 at 11:48 AM.
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
Old 18th March 2020, 11:58 AM   #479
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,832
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm pretty sure Thermal isn't a theist; but kinda proving his point here...
I'm pretty sure Thermal is a theist, but like some others here, perhaps not one that admits it. I know Christians that deny they're religious. And those that believe in some "cosmic consciousness" but not a god. Yeah, right!
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís 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 18th March 2020, 12:04 PM   #480
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,942
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I don't think that's how the reasoning goes. The reasoning is that a creator of time and space would be incomprehensible, and would not be understood to exist through our understanding of time and space. Seems consistent to me, if not particularly useful in understanding the universe. Not useful, agreed, but not dismissable.
Again, note this reasoning is again not defining what God is, but what he isn't. Add to untestable, invisible, undetectable, unprovable, unfalsifiable he's now incomprehensible. Well, if God is incomprehensible to humans how is it that anyone can say they know him and what he wants?

I'm sorry, if you can only define something but what it isn't, it can be dismissed.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 18th March 2020 at 12:30 PM.
acbytesla 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 07:21 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.