NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 657
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| shrox wrote: | | NarcissusSavage wrote: | | I am not certain I exist. |
If you don't believe you exist, I can see why you might have difficulty believing that god could exist. |
Take that one step farther. I do not believe the word "god" has any discernable meaning at all. I equate it to a nonsensical word, such as zzjjttauuulll or kjgvbaboeurh etc. It is not adequately defined, and those who use it change what they mean by it nearly every separate utterance of it. The word has a chameleon meaning; it changes depending on what you mean by it in the moment and thus has no concrete meaning.
This is why I'm not an Atheist, Agnostic, Deist, or Theist. I'm Ignostic. The question "Is there a god?" has no meaning to me. It’s not a matter of belief or disbelief, there has to be something to believe or disbelieve. Can you answer "Is there a sskkiyrbkbblllzzztz?" To answer, first you need to know what sskkiyrbkbblllzzztz means.... to me, the word god has equally little meaning.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NarcissusSavage wrote: | | I do not believe the word "god" has any discernable meaning at all. I equate it to a nonsensical word, such as zzjjttauuulll or kjgvbaboeurh etc. It is not adequately defined, and those who use it change what they mean by it nearly every separate utterance of it. |
This is kind of a cop-out, isn't it? I agree that "God" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. But a lot of words that we encounter all the time do not have a single precisely-defined meaning. It doesn't mean that we should just give up! It just means that whenever someone says "God", you should ask them precisely what they mean by it.
| sskkiyrbkbblllzzztz wrote: | | Can you answer "Is there a sskkiyrbkbblllzzztz?" To answer, first you need to know what sskkiyrbkbblllzzztz means.... |
Exactly! So the next time someone asks you, "Is there a God?" you should reply, "What do you mean by "God""? They will tell you what they mean, and then you can talk about it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 657
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | NarcissusSavage wrote: | | I do not believe the word "god" has any discernable meaning at all. I equate it to a nonsensical word, such as zzjjttauuulll or kjgvbaboeurh etc. It is not adequately defined, and those who use it change what they mean by it nearly every separate utterance of it. |
This is kind of a cop-out, isn't it? I agree that "God" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. But a lot of words that we encounter all the time do not have a single precisely-defined meaning. It doesn't mean that we should just give up! It just means that whenever someone says "God", you should ask them precisely what they mean by it.
| sskkiyrbkbblllzzztz wrote: | | Can you answer "Is there a sskkiyrbkbblllzzztz?" To answer, first you need to know what sskkiyrbkbblllzzztz means.... |
Exactly! So the next time someone asks you, "Is there a God?" you should reply, "What do you mean by "God""? They will tell you what they mean, and then you can talk about it! |
Experience has taught me that asking that of them will garner me nothing. The person in question I am speaking to will either A) get upset with the request for a definition. B) Simply ignore the question. C) Reply with a vague answer. D) Reply with a precise answer that they later disregard in any subsequent discussion. Or E) reply with irrational contradicting babbling.
The word simply means too many different things, many of which are self contradicting non entities, and I've not met someone yet who can rationally define the word "god" of any consequence. I look forward to someone providing a valid meaningful definition of the word. I genuinely do.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NarcissusSavage wrote: | | I look forward to someone providing a valid meaningful definition of the word. I genuinely do. |
Here's a minimalist candidate: if there is a cause for the universe's existence, then that cause is called "God". |
|
| Back to top |
|
NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 657
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | NarcissusSavage wrote: | | I look forward to someone providing a valid meaningful definition of the word. I genuinely do. |
Here's a minimalist candidate: if there is a cause for the universe's existence, then that cause is called "God". |
That is a mostly valid definition. However, it is one without any real meaning. This entity is not of any real consequence, for it is not even a real entity per se. It is essentially a phenomenon, like any other event in history; it however would simply be the first of them. This would not even be a conscious thing, more like just an event of some kind. I'm not saying that this version of god is invalid, it certainly could be, but it would just have no bearing on religion whatsoever, really. It would be like worship of the big bang. In the end, I think it might be more appropriate to give this phenomenon a different name, like...Eg. the Big Bang for sake of clarity.
I could take exception to the specific phrasing you used, as your definition included a conditional, which is absurd, but I’ll assume I know what you meant. Which I almost never do on principle, but I honestly think I know what you meant in this case. But please correct me if it seems I’m wrong.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Maybe you are too?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
donnie_darko
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 27, 2009
Age: 23
Posts: 1794
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I still think science favors a deterministic theory of choice, rather than an x-factor of free will. Though I think people's desire to feel responsible for their own actions and to sew vengeance on evil-doers has made the deterministic theory unpopular. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MCalavera
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 16, 2010
Age: 30
Posts: 4202
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | NarcissusSavage wrote: | | I look forward to someone providing a valid meaningful definition of the word. I genuinely do. |
Here's a minimalist candidate: if there is a cause for the universe's existence, then that cause is called "God". |
Even if it's impersonal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MCalavera wrote: | | Even if it's impersonal? |
Sure, why not. Deists and pantheists are usually thought of as believing in God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MCalavera
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 16, 2010
Age: 30
Posts: 4202
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | MCalavera wrote: | | Even if it's impersonal? |
Sure, why not. Deists and pantheists are usually thought of as believing in God. |
Actually, most deists I know believe in a personal God. He just doesn't care about our human affairs.
As for an entity that's impersonal, I think labeling it "God" would be a tiny bit misleading. |
|
| Back to top |
|
01001011
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 04, 2010
Posts: 870
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:49 am Post subject: Re: free will and atheism |
|
|
| AngelRho wrote: |
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the choice to play the game is an arbitrary one. Suppose I don't want to play chess, but would rather play checkers or go. Or I'm bored with chess and would rather play a chess variant like suicide. You can choose to play by the rules of science, by the rules of religion, or by a mix of both. You make an arbitrary choice when you decide to go any one direction. |
You don;t claim you are playing chess when you are playing suicide. Then don't claim you are reasoning in the sense other people know when you are just asserting your magical doctrine.
| Quote: |
... and religious/spiritual truth. |
A bunch of nonsense.
| Quote: |
"Based on reality?" And what is that nature of that reality? And "reinterpretation being impossible," well, that's just silly. Even within the scientific method conclusions are often open ended and allow for alternative explanations. |
Science is based on reality because the success or failure of a theory is entirely decided by what is happening in reality, not your magic book woo.
| Quote: | | If all atheists reject evidence for an objective moral code in favor of one that suits their liking, then that rejection is based on subjective opinion and they are not following objective morality. I never said it's necessarily true that atheists do this, so I have no idea why someone would complain to me about it. |
What falsifiable theory for objective moral code you have?
| Quote: |
| 01001011 wrote: | | Then why can't I declare whatever I get from my own nature 'moral'? Based on what objective measure you say god's nature is more 'moral' than mine? All you can do is arguing in circle. |
You can do whatever you want. I have no control over what you do or what you declare.
What I'm saying is this: If God is the author of all creation and made the universe for His own pleasure and purpose, then He gets to decide the rules and give the commands. If that is true, then God Himself is the objective standard of morality. It would therefore be God's responsibility to communicate that standard, however much is necessary, to the creation. It then becomes the creation's responsibility to choose whether to accept or reject that moral standard.
If and only if God is THE moral standard AND the moral standard is an objective one, any man-made moral code will necessarily be a subjective one. |
Fail. If I create a bunch of humanoids does it mean whatever command I give them is THE moral standard for them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
AngelRho
Synclavier owner/operator
Joined: Jan 05, 2008
Posts: 3750
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:43 am Post subject: Re: free will and atheism |
|
|
| 01001011 wrote: | | Science is based on reality because the success or failure of a theory is entirely decided by what is happening in reality, not your magic book woo. |
I don't follow a magical book, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
And exactly what IS reality anyway? Is reality ONLY what is scientifically definable? How does science establish reality? Or...perhaps a better way to ask the question is how does science recognize what reality is?
| 01001011 wrote: | | What falsifiable theory for objective moral code you have? |
What exactly is meant by "falsifiable"? Biblical morality can be tested. But is the measure of objectivity dependent on taking all factors into account, or is "objective" defined by imposing anti-religious bias or sentiment? If the latter, then there is no true objectivity in a quasi-scientific appraisal of it and we have little to talk about. If the former, you can observe individual human interactions and societal behaviors and objectively conclude that Biblical morality conforms with reality.
| 01001011 wrote: | | Fail. If I create a bunch of humanoids does it mean whatever command I give them is THE moral standard for them? |
Why not? Incidentally, I saw this kind of response coming, and "Fail" seems hastily judgmental.
Also, why or why not is ultimately going to depend on whether or not you are God. If we suppose for the sake of argument that you are God, then absolutely. If you are not God, then you yourself are subject to a higher power as is your own creation. But that's a different discussion, I think.
I also take no issue with thinking of morality as a set of commands. But, as I said, I think the nature of morality is such that each individual is responsible for choosing to obey the commands or not. To clarify another point, I think it is possible to make the argument that morality could be a product of evolution if you wanted to argue that God is unnecessary for morality. But that would also mean that moral values that are necessary for survival would be objective morals--murder might be seen as a threat to the survival of the species, the golden rule ensures the survival of all, etc. If you can observe historical consistency of, say, four or five moral values or mandates, then you have an empirical case for objective morality. But I will also say that my particular faith doesn't lead me in that direction and if you really want to argue about it, it will have to be with someone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Thom_Fuleri
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Posts: 814
Location: Leicestershire, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | NarcissusSavage wrote: | | I look forward to someone providing a valid meaningful definition of the word. I genuinely do. |
Here's a minimalist candidate: if there is a cause for the universe's existence, then that cause is called "God". |
It's a start, but it has the big problem in that it gets conflated with the Christian one. I think we should use a different name for the cause of the universe; perhaps "Baggnib" is a suitable name. Then we can attempt to relate Baggnib to the qualities of God and see if they match.
Is Baggnib sentient? Unknown.
Is Baggnib still around? Unknown (the creation of a second universe would be a good indicator, but nothing yet).
Is Baggnib remotely aware of or interested in us? Unknown.
Hmm, not much to go on there.
The problem is the human tendency to anthropomorphise. If you want to call the first cause "god", then fine; but that doesn't make it sentient or even a specific event. We have a name for the process by which living creatures become corpses. It's called "death". And this is personified by a skeleton in a black robe with a scythe. But we know that Death isn't a real being - he's a metaphor. He even shares many of God's characteristics - everywhere at once, immortal, knows everything, has a mysterious plan we don't understand, takes our souls for unknown purpose, cannot be stopped or harmed... but, most importantly, Death does not exist. Death the process does - Death the person does not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
shrox
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 12, 2011
Posts: 3254
Location: OK let's go.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| At some point one has to make a stand. I exist and God exists. That is my starting point. Better than sitting around mulling over if there is a starting point or not... |
|
| Back to top |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shrox wrote: | | At some point one has to make a stand. I exist and God exists. That is my starting point. Better than sitting around mulling over if there is a starting point or not... |
I don't think that many of the people who have been raised as atheists mull over whether the universe has a starting point or not. It has absolutely no significance to people's everyday lives, unless they are taught that they have to hold a certain belief about the origin of the universe in order to receive some divine reward after death.
Besides, if you add a hypothetical god to the equation, you have to concern yourself with the question where that god came from. It just replaces one question with another. Of course you can say that god has always existed, but why not assume the same for the universe? For all we know, it might be cyclical. If the expansion speed of the universe does not exceed escape velocity, it will eventually contract and collapse into a singularity (known as the big crunch scenario). This singularity could then cause another big bang, so there is no reason to assume a starting point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
01001011
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 04, 2010
Posts: 870
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:31 am Post subject: Re: free will and atheism |
|
|
| AngelRho wrote: | | 01001011 wrote: | | Science is based on reality because the success or failure of a theory is entirely decided by what is happening in reality, not your magic book woo. |
I don't follow a magical book, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
And exactly what IS reality anyway? Is reality ONLY what is scientifically definable? How does science establish reality? Or...perhaps a better way to ask the question is how does science recognize what reality is? |
As long as we are talking here, some reality exists. This 'reality' is the unknown object. Saying something exists or not is just a statement about some properties of 'reality'.
Science, in the broadest term, is the rational study of reality. In particular, science must be relevant and unambiguous. For example 'tomorrow may or may not rain' is not relevant to the weather, while 'it will rain tomorrow' is because its truth depends on an event happening in reality. At the end, these requirements essentially results in the scientific method - that a hypothesis must be falsifiable and they are accepted based on observations.
So science essentially defines what can be reasonable said about 'reality'.
| Quote: |
| 01001011 wrote: | | What falsifiable theory for objective moral code you have? |
What exactly is meant by "falsifiable"? Biblical morality can be tested. But is the measure of objectivity dependent on taking all factors into account, or is "objective" defined by imposing anti-religious bias or sentiment? If the latter, then there is no true objectivity in a quasi-scientific appraisal of it and we have little to talk about. If the former, you can observe individual human interactions and societal behaviors and objectively conclude that Biblical morality conforms with reality. |
I am asking under what condition you would conclude that biblical morality does NOT exist? I think this has been done to death in the last thread.
| Quote: |
| 01001011 wrote: | | Fail. If I create a bunch of humanoids does it mean whatever command I give them is THE moral standard for them? |
Why not? Incidentally, I saw this kind of response coming, and "Fail" seems hastily judgmental.
|
We all know about the Euthyphro dilemma. Your naive divine command theory does not serve well as the basis of any 'universal morality'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
