S
ss7
Guest
IgnoredOne said:
So he is not coterminous with Time. Is this a change from your original stance about the relationship between god and time?
IgnoredOne said:
What I am taking away from this is the simple statement that we do not know if logic can be applied to god. Since you have just rendered a tool that we regularly use to infer the truth content of statements uncertain in this situation, this means that a whole class of positive statements about god is now to be treated as suspect. This includes statements regarding his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.
For example, we can now say that god is both omnipotent and not omnipotent (which is illogical) and not know if we are correct. True?
If true, then how can we now make another propositional statement such as: "If God exists, then he is omnipotent." with any degree of certainty? In other words, all of god's properties are under a cloud of doubt now. True?
Please note that even belief has a degree of certainty (a probability value) associated with it--at least in the believer's mind. This probability is less than 1, but non-zero. If zero, then there is no belief. So what I just said above applies equally to beliefs about the properties of god, since they can also be forumulated as propositional statements.
IgnoredOne said:
Is this purpose of his not under a cloud of doubt also? Take this propositional statement: "If God wants it, then we have Free Will." How can we be sure that whatever logic we apply to it says anything about its truth content? How indeed do we determine the truth content, if any, of that statement?
And besides, what is the distinguishing test? How do we distinguish, say, a deliberate limiting of omniscience from a real lack of omniscience? What is the test?
IgnoredOne said:
Why just those assumptions? What about the assumption that time does not flow simultaneously in both directions, or that multiple universes do not converge and diverge at will at the junction points of causality and mess up my hair for no apparent reason?
These are not assumptions, IgnoredOne. These are speculation. If every speculation were mentioned and treated as assumptions before we made a statement, we would not make many statements. Besides, the Big Cheese, unlike you or I, presumably would not be constrained by these assumptions, even if they were not assumptions but reality, right? So how are these assumptions relevant in any way to my question?
Anyway, what I understand from your reply is that God does not know the result chosen, but that is on purpose. In other words, he chooses to limit his omniscience. In that case, to repeat what I asked above: What is the distinguishing test? How do we distinguish a deliberate limiting of omniscience from a real lack of omniscience? How do we know that god is not putting on a swagger and brazening it out?
IgnoredOne said:
I cannot argue with your experience, but I cannot deny mine either. My experience is quite different. So either you or I have misunderstood at least some of the atheists we've met. I'll explain below.
IgnoredOne said:
Let me clear up one confusion, hopefully once and for all. Lack of a belief in the existence of something is not the same as saying that it is possible to prove the non-existence of that thing. That is why I said that atheism does not insist on the non-existence of anything, in response to your vigorous claim that atheists insist on the non-existence of an intelligent creator. Also, I asked you what "intelligent" meant?
Atheism cannot get into this sordid business of proving negatives and continue to be internally consistent. Lack of a belief in a claim simply amounts to rejecting that claim. That is it. There is no more. Anything else is meaningless arrogance that is doomed to fail.
The analogy of the child and fairytale is simple and incomplete. A little deeper digging is required. A more complete conversation would be as follows.
Atheist/Child: I do not believe in fairies.
Storyteller: Are you insisting that there are no fairies?
Atheist/Child: No.
Storyteller: I am confused. Why do you not insist thus?
Atheist/Child: I cannot prove the non-existence of fairies beyond statistical doubt. It is not possible to prove a negative if the domain of discourse cannot be bounded at the present time.
[Hey, don't look at me, this is one precocious child!]
Storyteller: So I can change your mind if I show you evidence of fairies beyond statistical doubt within the domain of discourse?
Atheist/Child: Of course, silly. I'm a child, not stupid.
IgnoredOne said:
"Strength" is not a word I would use. A difference in agreement regarding the object of disbelief is closer to the mark. And even that is disputed and often confusing. I think that you are thinking of this so-called "strong atheism", and trying to generalize that to an atheist position. My advice: Don't. It's a hornet's nest of disagreements and confusion. Even I don't go there.
There is dispute about where the line between agnosticism and atheism should be drawn. In my mind, if the object of disbelief is properly defined, then either the differences disappear, or agnostics become theists. In short, the distinction between agnostics and atheists is at best a laboured one.
IgnoredOne said:
Dangerous assumption to make. We have not yet reached consensus on what this "majority belief" is. Let us not get ahead of ourselves.
IgnoredOne said:
I've read this interview. Here Dawkins was saying that biological evolution and intelligence have a relationship. Intelligence comes later in the evolutionary stage. That is the observation. He then gets to talking about an alien intelligence within this universe, in some galaxy, who might appear as god to us. He is not talking about a conventional tri-omni god here. Like so:
"Maybe somewhere in some other galaxy there is a super-intelligence so colossal that from our point of view it would be a god. But it cannot have been the sort of God that we need to explain the origin of the universe, because it cannot have been there that early."
--Richard Dawkins
IgnoredOne said:
I don't know how I personally would quantify the harm and good that comes from religious belief. So I consider this quote quite unfortunate. But how is this quote relevant to atheists insisting on the non-existence of an intelligent creator? You really must explain things more to me, you know.
By the way, can you point me to the original source of this quote? I have certain thoughts on the effects of the successive waves of Islamic invasions of India and Iran and I want to see if there is any sort of data or references in the original article.
IgnoredOne said:
This does not just seem unfortunate, but downright weird. I don't know how anyone could say that without blushing. If I were to massage the quote thus: "If God created time and space, he must live outside of time and space. Therefore, he [can be] nonexistent [in time and space].", then that would still sound more consistent than what is actually quoted. As it stands, it sounds like rubbish. Once again, can you point me straight and true to the original source? I am intensely curious.
IgnoredOne said:
I assure you, no rejecting will be done. Everything will be examined to the point of pain.
I am not that guy.
IgnoredOne said:
Ah, the Hoyle Fallacy. IgnoredOne, are you familiar with a web site called TalkOrigins? Here is a link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html. Please read carefully, go through the list of references at the end, and pay particular attention to the last sentence when you read the article.
Also by the way, where is the tornado-sweeping-junk-Boeing probability in Hoyle's calculations? To compare two quantities, you actually need both quantities, no?
IgnoredOne said:
Good, this is progress.
IgnoredOne said:
It takes very little to suprise me. So there is a tremendous chance that I will be suprised. So tell me, what about the Laws of Thermodynamics comes to your mind?
IgnoredOne said:
There are very few things that I have an idealized view of. Scientists might have a vested interest in protecting their theories, but that does not protect their precious theories from scrutiny by other scientists. I realize that the system is not perfect, and no one here has claimed that.
Even scientists don't pretend that they are free from prejudice, let alone the irrelevant impressions of laymen. Why do you think we have things like experimental controls and double blind tests?
IgnoredOne said:
Either:
1. You had already decided that the behaviour of atheists online is monolithic, in which case the question was redundant. No fallacy there, just rhetoric.
2. Or, the question was genuine in which case any answer I gave would be generalized to atheists because the actual text of the question mentioned "atheists", and not "ss7".
Is this becoming clear to you now?
IgnoredOne said:
I think of it a little differently. I think that if the probability of something being so or something happening thus is 1, then it is no longer belief. It is certainty or foreknowledge, as the case may be. If the value is zero, then it is impossible. If the value lies between 0 and 1, exclusive, then it is belief. The question now simply reduces to determining the probability, or the strength, of our various beliefs. The scientific method is the best tool for assigning these probabilities so far that I know of.
IgnoredOne said:
I think that a free market is the best way of organizing an economy, but I don't think that a free market is immune to market failures. Similarly I like the idea of peer review but I don't think that it is infallible. Why this simplistic assumption that my sense of skepticism does not extend beyond the god-product, IgnoredOne?
I asked you if symbolic logic can be applied to god--a specific entity--not if it can be applied universally.
I did not postulate the existence of a single universe. I said that speculations of a multiverse is bad science at this point in time and space. There is a difference.
Your faith in my faith is really quite touching.
it should be moved.
