NationStates Jolt Archive

That the biblical concept of god is a fabrication is no irrational assertion, it's a historical fact. The biblical god is only an arbitrary conglomerate made out of various mesopotamian, levantine, and egyptian traditions that was assembled in the 5th and 4th century BCE (after the Jews' return from the "Babylonian Captivity"). Prior to that no-body had ever heard of the biblical god. This fabrication is somewhat like the stuff that L. Ron Hubbard would write...

You can't actually logically get there, my friend. You can get there with giant leaps of logic like you've employed, but you simply cannot get there the way you claim.

1. Even it is a conglomeration of other stories, it could very well be a conglomeration of the parts that are right.

2. On top of that, since you claim it to be a conglomeration, it can't be a fabrication, unless you just don't understand English. You can't steal an idea and have made it up at the same time. That you miss this isn't surprising, because you don't care which it is provided you can attack the idea.

3. Even if they appear to have gotten from other places or made it up, you cannot conclude that there is no factual source. It's impossible mostly because the only way to draw that conclusion is to start with it. For all you know God came down from heaven and told them which parts to take from which other stories, OR the stories you think God is derivitve of could have been partially accurate.

Frankly, it doesn't matter what the source was or appears to be, one simply cannot rule out the relevance of it to God without access to God.

You can speculate. You can suggest. You can say what it appears to be. But if you claim you can PROVE it, then you're operating on faith and you've left reason behind.

By the way, I'm correct that you're referencing the Post-It analogy that's often used to describe the idea of referencing the same thing in a bunch of different ways, am I not?

Yeah, the "I have on my desk a post-it written by god. You'll just have to take my word for it." situation.

Yeah, the "I have on my desk a post-it written by god. You'll just have to take my word for it." situation.

No, then you're talking about a different analogy.

However, that's actually the amusing thing about the difference between a Christian fundamentalist and UB. Because the post-it you mention is technically possible even if it never happens nor ever will happen. So proof of God is technically possible, though it's pretty clear that proof has not been found and never will.

However, given our limitations we could never factually know none existence. We can know there are no horses in this box. We can know there are no horses in my yard. But we can't know horse simply don't exist, because it's not knowledge you can have. You can't have knowledge that confirms the lack of something. It's simply logically impossible.

The only way he could reach the conclusion is if we had a single source who said, yeah, I have no basis for this idea that could be remotely considered to be factual. But we don't have a specific source and we don't have that confession. As such, any such conclusion REQUIRES a leap of logic.

No, then you're talking about a different analogy.

However, that's actually the amusing thing about the difference between a Christian fundamentalist and UB. Because the post-it you mention is technically possible even if it never happens nor ever will happen. So proof of God is technically possible, though it's pretty clear that proof has not been found and never will.

However, given our limitations we could never factually know none existence. We can know there are no horses in this box. We can know there are no horses in my yard. But we can't know horse simply don't exist, because it's not knowledge you can have. You can't have knowledge that confirms the lack of something. It's simply logically impossible.

The only way he could reach the conclusion is if we had a single source who said, yeah, I have no basis for this idea that could be remotely considered to be factual. But we don't have a specific source and we don't have that confession. As such, any such conclusion REQUIRES a leap of logic.

I recently saw an explanation on the difference between evidence and proof - we could technically consider the bible and the post-it proof of god's existence, but it's not actually evidence.

I recently saw an explanation on the difference between evidence and proof - we could technically consider the bible and the post-it proof of god's existence, but it's not actually evidence.

Yes. It's kind of like I can say with all knowledge what order I ate two jolly ranchers, a red and a green one, in that order. You can get evidence the wrappers that show I ate those two, but the proof, my memory of it, only proves it to me.

I call this the jolly rancher analagy, mostly because when I thought of it I was eating jolly ranchers.

I have eaten four jolly ranchers. A yellow, a green, a red and a purple in that order. I tell you truthfully that I ate them in that order. And you look and see the wrappers that evidence that.

However, by fact, what I remember is false and I at them green, yellow, purple, red. All evidence that exists after a given amount of time is identical between my memory of the events and some absolute sense of the events.

So, the interesting thing is that the only reason to consider my memory to be wrong is if there is an absolute sense to the universe, something we don't really know, or if time is continuous, which don't actually know either.

If you consider the world to only be what is at the moment, and that it slowly morphs according to time, and that, in a sense, events are only the evidence they leave behind, then it actually happened as I described, because there is no other evidence. It requires an assertion of an absolute before we can say that the evidence available to us is not proof.

Yes. It's kind of like I can say with all knowledge what order I ate two jolly ranchers, a red and a green one, in that order. You can get evidence the wrappers that show I ate those two, but the proof, my memory of it, only proves it to me.

I call this the jolly rancher analagy, mostly because when I thought of it I was eating jolly ranchers.

I have eaten four jolly ranchers. A yellow, a green, a red and a purple in that order. I tell you truthfully that I ate them in that order. And you look and see the wrappers that evidence that.

However, by fact, what I remember is false and I at them green, yellow, purple, red. All evidence that exists after a given amount of time is identical between my memory of the events and some absolute sense of the events.

So, the interesting thing is that the only reason to consider my memory to be wrong is if there is an absolute sense to the universe, something we don't really know, or if time is continuous, which don't actually know either.

If you consider the world to only be what is at the moment, and that it slowly morphs according to time, and that, in a sense, events are only the evidence they leave behind, then it actually happened as I described, because there is no other evidence. It requires an assertion of an absolute before we can say that the evidence available to us is not proof.

I like the cherry ones. And blue raspberry. Do they have an orange one? An orange one would kick high amounts of ass.

No, then you're talking about a different analogy.

However, that's actually the amusing thing about the difference between a Christian fundamentalist and UB. Because the post-it you mention is technically possible even if it never happens nor ever will happen. So proof of God is technically possible, though it's pretty clear that proof has not been found and never will.

However, given our limitations we could never factually know none existence. We can know there are no horses in this box. We can know there are no horses in my yard. But we can't know horse simply don't exist, because it's not knowledge you can have. You can't have knowledge that confirms the lack of something. It's simply logically impossible.

The only way he could reach the conclusion is if we had a single source who said, yeah, I have no basis for this idea that could be remotely considered to be factual. But we don't have a specific source and we don't have that confession. As such, any such conclusion REQUIRES a leap of logic.

I guess you'll ignore that religion is a "belief" system, and it relies on "faith" not "proof".

It's not a leap of logic - it's a leap of faith.

Which is why religion is not a suitable substitute for science, and science is not a suitable substitute for religion.

I guess you'll ignore that religion is a "belief" system, and it relies on "faith" not "proof".

It's not a leap of logic - it's a leap of faith.

Which is why religion is not a suitable substitute for science, and science is not a suitable substitute for religion.

Um, reading what you're replying to and the context for it would really help you out here. I was talking about UB's claims and I specifically said they were comparable to faith. He is claiming that he can prove that the Biblical God does not exist without a leap of logic or faith. His claims require both.

According to UB, his claims are form logic not his belief system or religion. As such, your reply has nothing to do with what I said. It's the reply of someone who clearly hasn't read or understood what we were discussing.

But, hey, you saw a poster who frequently makes you look silly, so you decided to attack before you'd read, which of course just gives me another opportunity to laugh and point at a rather silly post.

I guess you'll ignore that religion is a "belief" system, and it relies on "faith" not "proof".

It's not a leap of logic - it's a leap of faith.

Which is why religion is not a suitable substitute for science, and science is not a suitable substitute for religion.

... Is your sig from that early 90's SNL skit?

But, hey, you saw a poster who frequently makes you look silly, so you decided to attack before you'd read, which of course just gives me another opportunity to laugh and point at a rather silly post.

No, I saw you and Szanth agreeing, and thought you were on about what Szanth was trying to push on me earlier - that Szanth gets to decide what definitions apply within Christianity - that he gets to decide what is a God, what is a deity, etc. - and that he can safely ignore everything the Christians define.

No, I saw you and Szanth agreeing, and thought you were on about what Szanth was trying to push on me earlier - that Szanth gets to decide what definitions apply within Christianity - that he gets to decide what is a God, what is a deity, etc. - and that he can safely ignore everything the Christians define.

And this is why actually reading the posts, as opposed to assuming the contents of the posts, is a smart thing to do to not look like a complete fool.

And this is why actually reading the posts, as opposed to assuming the contents of the posts, is a smart thing to do to not look like a complete fool.

Nah, why start now? He should just come out guns blazing. It's worked so well so far.

And this is why actually reading the posts, as opposed to assuming the contents of the posts, is a smart thing to do to not look like a complete fool.

And this is why I was reading the whole thread, instead of just the last part...

And this is why I was reading the whole thread, instead of just the last part...

Your post, and the ensuing amusement, show that to be a specious claim at best.

Your post, and the ensuing amusement, show that to be a specious claim at best.

Read back where I was arguing with Szanth.

Read back where I was arguing with Szanth.

Why bother?

Why bother?

Because you would see what I'm talking about. Then you would look like an idiot.

Because you would see what I'm talking about. Then you would look like an idiot.

Doubtful. A conversation a day or an hour ago is irrelevant to this issue. You jumped back into the discussion, misinterpreted a post, and the poster's intent, commented accordingly, and looked like an idiot. The context of a prior debate is pointless if you lack the ability to keep yourself up to date on the discussion as it is NOW.

Doubtful. A conversation a day or an hour ago is irrelevant to this issue. You jumped back into the discussion, misinterpreted a post, and the poster's intent, commented accordingly, and looked like an idiot. The context of a prior debate is pointless if you lack the ability to keep yourself up to date on the discussion as it is NOW.

It was about three hours before. Not irrelevant.

Because you would see what I'm talking about. Then you would look like an idiot.

Maybe you need to talk slower, because I don't get it. How does your conversation with Szanth have anything to do with what I said and the fact that I clearly was referring to UB's claims that he could disprove the Biblical God? What could you possibly introduce that would make it okay for you to ignore what I said and just make crap up?

It was about three hours before. Not irrelevant.

Perfectly irrelevant, despite your belief that you're free to jump to conclusions based on it.

It was about three hours before. Not irrelevant.

Again, how is YOUR conversation relevant to what I was talking about? Seriously, man, you can't possibly think this is an argument beneficial to your credibility, can you?

I guess you'll ignore that religion is a "belief" system, and it relies on "faith" not "proof".Why does religion rely on faith when the issue of the religion is supposed to be real? Should religion not rely on knowledge and facts rather than on some transcendent crap?

Why does religion rely on faith when the issue of the religion is supposed to be real? Should religion not rely on knowledge and facts rather than on some transcendent crap?

Seriously, you can't be this unaware of what religion is referencing. And if you are, now is a good time to bow out of the conversation.

Religions are about "transcendent crap". That can't very well ignore the realm in which they are entrenched. Religious beliefs cover an area, for the most, that falls outside of science. Science is a discipline that explicitly addresses the fact that it has limitations, that facts and knowledge have necessary limitations. To pretend like facts and knowledge are not limited is to ignore their role in our world and to ignore your own limitations.

But, hey, given this post, I take it you've decided to stop lying about being an atheist and just admit it, right?

Sorry, I stepped away from this party for a few days. I'll try to catch up.

Ouch. I guess I was just trying to point out that your operational definition of a god seems to lack a certain specificity. Point four in your argument happened to be a convenient example and related to a point I've been discussing. Mea culpa.

Oh, and disingenuous? Really?

1. Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy; fake or deceptive; as, disingenuous conduct or schemes.
2. Not ingenuous; wanting in noble candor or frankness; not frank or open; uncandid; unworthily or meanly artful.
3. Assuming a pose of naivete—to make a point, or for deception.

Check the vocab, big guy.
My "vocab" is just fine, because I used "disingenuous" as in definition #3 (the presumed naivete being that you did not realize the points were unrelated). It was an accusation, one tempered by allowing that you may have created the impression by accident. Though in fact, your supposed mea culpa above, leads me to believe it wasn't an accident, after all.

Btw, it's "big gal" to you. Actually, in reality, I'm quite small. Why don't you just address me as "Milady" from now on, to be safe? ;)

<snip>

Deity: noun. blah blah blah... how many god damn times am I going to have to keep posting that definition? There IS a workable general definition of god, regardless of whether you decide to acknowledge it or not.

"So your christians might say..." - Sure, they'll make a distinction between god and a god, but only because 'god' doesn't have a name they can agree on, so they just call him by his title. This does not keep keep christianity from being polytheistic, just because they've turned a noun into a proper noun because they're lazy bastards and don't want to call him Yahweh. Bottom line: by an objective definition, Satan and God are both gods. Unless you insist that Satan is God, or is his split personality he uses when he feels like doing evil or something, you have no ground to stand on when you say it's monotheistic other than "La la la la la, I can't hear you".
I think you were the one chanting "lalalala." If you had bothered to read what I claimed as my personal preferred definition of "god" you would have known that it was, in fact, the dictionary definition of "deity" that you so enjoy throwing at people instead of a reasoned argument.

The only thing I did that I did not see you do is acknowledge that people will apply that definition selectively, applying it to what they believe and not to what other people believe. Is that irrational of them? Yes, but they still do it, and in a conversation such as this, it is important to be aware of that. And that is why, when I made a comment about what Christians may or may not believe a god to be, I specified that I was referring to whatever their subjective and selective use of the word might be. In order to get ahead of people who would try to dismiss my statements as applying a non-Christian standard to Christian beliefs.

Of course, you apparently missed that distinction, since you are, apparently, simply trying to shut people down by throwing dictionary definitions at them, rather than actually participating in a discussion.

So what are the criteria to distinguish humans from demigods and demigods from gods?
Public opinion. If enough people think you are just simply SUPER-DUPER-LICIOUS and TOO-TOO-VERY-VERY, you too may be declared a demi-god by your fans.

Also, being a fictional character (like Herakles) helps. Novelists can say anything they like about the heroes they make up.

im not sure that shinto recognizes "god" in the same way that a westerner might define it. so while "god" might be the closest definition, that doesnt necessarily mean that if you or i really understood shinto that we would agree with the assessment

but more importantly, as a man, hirohito would never ever meet the definition of god that a rational person would put forth. he can ONLY be a god within the rules of shinto. (should it be an appropriate designation)
No, actually, Shinto does not think of its "gods" the way westerners think of the word "god." "God" is merely an inadequate but convenient translation of "kami." The meanings are actually not fully compatible.

As evidenced by the fact that, in the Abrahamic religions, there is and can be only one "god" but in Shinto, anyone or anything can be or become "kami."

But isn't a Kami rather a spirit than a god? So wouldn't it rather fit into "our" concept of Angel or Muse?
Not really, no.

No, actually, Shinto does not think of its "gods" the way westerners think of the word "god." "God" is merely an inadequate but convenient translation of "kami." The meanings are actually not fully compatible.

As evidenced by the fact that, in the Abrahamic religions, there is and can be only one "god" but in Shinto, anyone or anything can be or become "kami."

i dont know enough about shinto to have claimed it to be more than speculation on my part. (not that im claiming that you think i was doing anything else)

i think there are 2 things going on with the kami=god translation. the first being that it is the most convenient translation and, in the christian mind, might "elevate" shinto into a more proper religion. (not my opinion, just my thought)

the other thing that occurred to me is that, in ww2 to claim that hirohito was a GOD to the japanese ramped up the racism to include religion-ism too. how DARE they compare their emperor to the creator of the universe!

in any case, its still my claim that any definition of god has to take into consideration the theology of the religion in question. without that you are just forcing an idea where it doesnt necessarily fit.

If you're not a Christian, does the OP really matter?

No, but it's still interesting. "Know thy enemy" and all that. ;)

Except in many faiths and mythologies, several gods were created by other gods, either through procreation or through simply creating things in the manner that gods do. The fact that Satan was created by Yahweh alone doesn't disqualify Satan from being a god.

It does in the Abrahamic religions because, as Ashmoria has been correctly pointing out, each religion gets to make up its own rules for itself. In the Abrahamic religions, no one can be a god except God. Period. Doesn't matter what you say. Their game, their rules.

i dont know enough about shinto to have claimed it to be more than speculation on my part. (not that im claiming that you think i was doing anything else)
No, you were perfectly clear on that point. I was just hoping to add something that might help with the clarification.

i think there are 2 things going on with the kami=god translation. the first being that it is the most convenient translation and, in the christian mind, might "elevate" shinto into a more proper religion. (not my opinion, just my thought)
My personal opinion is that it was more the former than the latter, since the bigotry evidenced by so many ethnologists of the 19th and early 20th centuries make it unlikely that they would have attempted to elevate someone else's beliefs to the same "proper" level as their own.

the other thing that occurred to me is that, in ww2 to claim that hirohito was a GOD to the japanese ramped up the racism to include religion-ism too. how DARE they compare their emperor to the creator of the universe!
I agree with this one. This was minor but not wholly uncommon attitude in WW2 propaganda, designed to either demonize or ridicule the enemy.

in any case, its still my claim that any definition of god has to take into consideration the theology of the religion in question. without that you are just forcing an idea where it doesnt necessarily fit.
I agree. I guess my only modification would be to say that we can still have a meaningful discussion of the subject, IF we are prepared to be exhaustingly clear about which concept of "god" we are talking about in any given context.

For the record, this thread does not qualify that way.

I agree. I guess my only modification would be to say that we can still have a meaningful discussion of the subject, IF we are prepared to be exhaustingly clear about which concept of "god" we are talking about in any given context.

For the record, this thread does not qualify that way.

and if we try to keep in mind the limitations of that concept. especially if we try to move it over to another theological system.

good to have you in the thread. i dont have the patience you do when it comes to explaining things over and over.

Jesus, or better yet known as "the word who was with God" has existed from the begginning, he didnt just start existing when Jesus was born, he had always existed but came to earth in the form of a babe.

How perfect. When you start getting challenged, you wrap your cape around you and away with you. Why bother actually formulating and defending an argument, right?

It's okay. We happily accept your admission of defeat.

It does in the Abrahamic religions because, as Ashmoria has been correctly pointing out, each religion gets to make up its own rules for itself. In the Abrahamic religions, no one can be a god except God. Period. Doesn't matter what you say. Their game, their rules.

Well, we are comparing Christianity to polytheistic religions, not just comparing different Abrahamic religions, so hence the point. But whatever, I certainly don't claim to be an expert on theology.

Well, we are comparing Christianity to polytheistic religions, not just comparing different Abrahamic religions, so hence the point. But whatever, I certainly don't claim to be an expert on theology.

what point?

and if we try to keep in mind the limitations of that concept. especially if we try to move it over to another theological system.

good to have you in the thread. i dont have the patience you do when it comes to explaining things over and over.
Damn, I just got depressed about myself. :D

what point?

That omnipotence isn't necessarily requisite for godship. Even when I was a Christian I didn't believe that god was omnipotent. But theological details aren't really that vital an issue to me, so meh.

Well, we are comparing Christianity to polytheistic religions, not just comparing different Abrahamic religions, so hence the point. But whatever, I certainly don't claim to be an expert on theology.
It is one thing to compare Christianity to polytheistic religions, and an entirely different thing to try to define or judge Christianity by the standards of polytheistic religions.

If one does the latter then, in my opinion, one is not much different from the bigots of yore who judged polytheistic religions by the standards of Christianity and declared them lacking, wrong, dead, or just childish versions of Christianity, which they subjectively considered to be superior.

It is one thing to compare Christianity to polytheistic religions, and an entirely different thing to try to define or judge Christianity by the standards of polytheistic religions.

If one does the latter then, in my opinion, one is not much different from the bigots of yore who judged polytheistic religions by the standards of Christianity and declared them lacking, wrong, dead, or just childish versions of Christianity, which they subjectively considered to be superior.

I don't use different standards when comparing religions. I see no point, as I'm not judging them, merely noting things about them. I'm not defining Christianity by polytheist perspective, as I'm not a polytheist. I'm not declaring Christianity lacking, wrong, dead or childish or inferior/superior to various other faiths. Sorry if that was the impression I gave.

That omnipotence isn't necessarily requisite for godship. Even when I was a Christian I didn't believe that god was omnipotent. But theological details aren't really that vital an issue to me, so meh.

why would you ever think that that was my position? i never wrote anything remotely like that.

of course omnipotence isnt necesssary for godship. if it were, there would have been no greek gods.

why would you ever think that that was my position? i never wrote anything remotely like that.

of course omnipotence isnt necesssary for godship. if it were, there would have been no greek gods.

I never said it was your position. [is confused]. At least, I don't think I did. Hmmm.

That omnipotence isn't necessarily requisite for godship. Even when I was a Christian I didn't believe that god was omnipotent. But theological details aren't really that vital an issue to me, so meh.

I'm not Christian. I'm not monotheist. I have often been the target of bigoted monotheists who have tried to attack my beliefs. And so forth.

Yet your remark, and many people's remarks in this thread, strike me as offensive. I feel offended on behalf of monotheists, I guess.

Non-requirement for omnipotence is a feature of religions that are not Christianity. Who are you to declare that, because it is a viewpoint that you happen to share, it is a valid way to judge and define Christianity? Christian authorities declare their god to be omnipotent. You and I may not believe that, but you are the minority and I am an outsider. Our opinions do not determine what Christianity is.

You saying that you think omnipotence is not a requirement for godhood and therefore the Christian god is not what Christians say it is, does not sound very different to me than certain bigots I've met saying that because the "gods" I revere do not match their definition of "god", they are not "gods" and my beliefs are false.

I never said it was your position. [is confused]. At least, I don't think I did. Hmmm.

oh

sorry

my mistake.

I'm not Christian. I'm not monotheist. I have often been the target of bigoted monotheists who have tried to attack my beliefs. And so forth.

Yet your remark, and many people's remarks in this thread, strike me as offensive. I feel offended on behalf of monotheists, I guess.

Non-requirement for omnipotence is a feature of religions that are not Christianity. Who are you to declare that, because it is a viewpoint that you happen to share, it is a valid way to judge and define Christianity? Christian authorities declare their god to be omnipotent. You and I may not believe that, but you are the minority and I am an outsider. Our opinions do not determine what Christianity is.

You saying that you think omnipotence is not a requirement for godhood and therefore the Christian god is not what Christians say it is, does not sound very different to me than certain bigots I've met saying that because the "gods" I revere do not match their definition of "god", they are not "gods" and my beliefs are false.

Whoa whoa whoa... hold on a second here. Why are you offended? I was not disparaging Christianity. I'm not saying Yahweh isn't a god or anything of the sort. I think you're taking what I'm saying a little too seriously. I'm not attacking anyone's religion here, this is simply casual opinion. I'm not trying to be hostile towards Christians or any other religious group. Just stating my opinion about an interesting question, that's all.

It is one thing to compare Christianity to polytheistic religions, and an entirely different thing to try to define or judge Christianity by the standards of polytheistic religions.

If one does the latter then, in my opinion, one is not much different from the bigots of yore who judged polytheistic religions by the standards of Christianity and declared them lacking, wrong, dead, or just childish versions of Christianity, which they subjectively considered to be superior.

this is sort of the perspective i am coming from.

if its wrong for christian theologians to declare that monotheism is a more grownup sophisticated kind of religion than polytheism--and i have heard that sort of things many times--then its equally wrong to claim that christianity is mistaken about its own theology.

I don't use different standards when comparing religions. I see no point, as I'm not judging them, merely noting things about them. I'm not defining Christianity by polytheist perspective, as I'm not a polytheist. I'm not declaring Christianity lacking, wrong, dead or childish or inferior/superior to various other faiths. Sorry if that was the impression I gave.

You should keep in mind the context in which you are speaking. The argument that I have been addressing, made by several people, is that Christianity is or may as well be polytheistic because, if squinted at from the right angle in the right light, parts of it can be made to conform to the standards of polytheistic religions.

This is nothing more than judging one religion by the standards of another.

Your statements may not have been meant to support such judgment, but just by their words, they do. You need to clarify if you do not mean to do that.

Whoa whoa whoa... hold on a second here. Why are you offended? I was not disparaging Christianity. I'm not saying Yahweh isn't a god or anything of the sort. I think you're taking what I'm saying a little too seriously. I'm not attacking anyone's religion here, this is simply casual opinion. I'm not trying to be hostile towards Christians or any other religious group. Just stating my opinion about an interesting question, that's all.
See my post about keeping aware of your context. When you are aware of what's going on around you, it's easier to avoid wandering into traffic.

I accept that you did not mean to disparage Christianity, but you should read your statements in conjunction with what others have said here, and you should see how it could be taken that way.

By the way, I personally do not think the other posters have been trying to disparage Christianity either (except for UB, of course), but nevertheless, they have been doing so, even if they don't realize it.

See my post about keeping aware of your context. When you are aware of what's going on around you, it's easier to avoid wandering into traffic.

I accept that you did not mean to disparage Christianity, but you should read your statements in conjunction with what others have said here, and you should see how it could be taken that way.

By the way, I personally do not think the other posters have been trying to disparage Christianity either (except for UB, of course), but nevertheless, they have been doing so, even if they don't realize it.

UB always disparages Christianity. Yeah, this isn't like a matter of life and death discussion for me... like I said, just casual interest, nothing more. Not trying to judge anybody here.

UB always disparages Christianity. Yeah, this isn't like a matter of life and death discussion for me... like I said, just casual interest, nothing more. Not trying to judge anybody here.

That's okay. *gently walks Callisdrun back to the sidelines and sits him down with a nice cold Gatorade; then goes back to the fray* ;)

It does in the Abrahamic religions because, as Ashmoria has been correctly pointing out, each religion gets to make up its own rules for itself. In the Abrahamic religions, no one can be a god except God. Period. Doesn't matter what you say. Their game, their rules.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Christianity and Judaism both refer to other gods. Abrahamic religions declare no other gods can be worshipped but God. It's not the same thing.

Meanwhile, monotheistic and polytheistic are studious designations. I can claim that I follow atheistic religion but if I'm worshipping the great sky spirit, I'm simply wrong.

I agree that to some degree the definition of a god, like the definition of love, like the definition of many intangibles, is up for grabs, but you can't just call anything god or declare that your religion doesn't have gods, doesn't have multiple gods, has a god, has multiple gods, because you say so. To some degree, terms have to have some level of agreed upon meaning.

It's also not true that Abrahamic religions don't define God in a way that some who favor Abrahamic religions wouldn't claim that some versions are polytheistic.

I know many, many Abrahamics that hold that the devil and the war in heaven are allegorical, precisely because they believe that in claims of a literal war and a literal devil would polytheistic and goes against the very idea of an omnipotent God. In order for a devil, who knows the properties of God, to start a war in heaven, he wouldn't just have to be prideful, he'd have to be completely and utterly incapable of understanding omnipotent, OR he would have to know that God is not, in fact, omnipotent and defeating God is actually possible. The entire thing doesn't make sense in a literal way, but more as a cautionary tale, of which we find many in the Bible.

Meanwhile, monotheistic and polytheistic are studious designations. I can claim that I follow atheistic religion but if I'm worshipping the great sky spirit, I'm simply wrong.

exactly

exactly

This doesn't mean there is no wiggle room on the designation of God. It's a nebulous concept that is by nature defined by the religious. It's a highly personalized definition, like love.

FUCK YOU JOLT.

Fuck you.

I had a longass post, and you had to shit on it. Fuck you. >_>


I'm not writing it again, screw that.

Public opinion. If enough people think you are just simply SUPER-DUPER-LICIOUS and TOO-TOO-VERY-VERY, you too may be declared a demi-god by your fans.

Also, being a fictional character (like Herakles) helps. Novelists can say anything they like about the heroes they make up.So the existence and nature of a god depends on opinion? That only applies if gods are not real, doesn't it?

FUCK YOU JOLT.

Fuck you.

I had a longass post, and you had to shit on it. Fuck you. >_>


I'm not writing it again, screw that.

Usually if you hit the back button on the browser once, you should be back at the reply page with ur post intact...u can copy it and save it in a text and post it later. :cool:

Usually if you hit the back button on the browser once, you should be back at the reply page with ur post intact...u can copy it and save it in a text and post it later. :cool:

Depends on the browser. Mine just wipes it clean.

UB always disparages Christianity.Christianity wouldn't be such a problem for me if there were any (!) independent source to confirm anything (!) that the bible claims theologically/historically. But there is none. In fact there are only sources contradicting the bible. So who is to be trusted? The thousands of sources informing us about ancient history and ancient people's beliefs or one source arbitrarily put together by fanatical folks who had the once-in-a-lifetime chance to write an alternative history for the Jews that would give them some divinely justified historical significance among the true ancient superpowers of Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Egypt??

Christianity wouldn't be such a problem for me if there were any (!) independent source to confirm anything (!) that the bible claims theologically/historically. But there is none. In fact there are only sources contradicting the bible. So who is to be trusted? The thousands of sources informing us about ancient history and ancient people's beliefs or one source arbitrarily put together by fanatical folks who had the once-in-a-lifetime chance to write an alternative history for the Jews that would give them some divinely justified historical significance among the true ancient superpowers of Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Egypt??

So you have independent sources that confirm the existence of Yo-yo...er I mean Yah?

Usually if you hit the back button on the browser once, you should be back at the reply page with ur post intact...u can copy it and save it in a text and post it later. :cool:

Nupe. I'm on IE. Also, this computer sucks - work comp.

I had a magical essay, too. Long, thought-out paragraphs, with careful turns of phrase and sharp, witty retorts.

Fairies were fucking on that post, man.

But no, Jolt wouldn't have any of it.

So you have independent sources that confirm the existence of Yo-yo...er I mean Yah?
Yah has been worshiped at least since the beginning of civilization. The sources are countless. The biblical god on the other side has only been worshiped since the bible had been written down, or shortly before. However, the bible itself claims that the biblical had been worshiped long before down into very ancient times, which is a lie. So if the bible lies about people's beliefs why would anyone assume it is more accurate about the god at issue?
There is no way of knowing whether or not Yah exists, but there is every way of knowing that Yhvh (Yah's jewish re-definition) does not exist.

Yah has been worshiped at least since the beginning of civilization. The sources are countless. The biblical god on the other side has only been worshiped since the bible had been written down, or shortly before. However, the bible itself claims that the biblical had been worshiped long before down into very ancient times, which is a lie. So if the bible lies about people's beliefs why would anyone assume it is more accurate about the god at issue?
There is no way of knowing whether or not Yah exists, but there is every way of knowing that Yhvh (Yah's jewish re-definition) does not exist.

So what you're saying is, that you're basing your belief in Yah on faith and baseless assumption, rather than cold, hard, and irrefutable evidence. Thanks for clearing that up.

So what you're saying is, that you're basing your belief in Yah on faith and baseless assumption, rather than cold, hard, and irrefutable evidence. Thanks for clearing that up.But the difference is that Yah (as any deity out of very ancient times) is an option while Yhvh is not. Yhvh is more like a certain Angel Moroni that a certain zealot pulled out of his butt for his own benefit.

There is God, and most people only think of him/her/it as the only God of the Christian religion, but with all the power atributed(sp?) to the Devil today one could also make the claim that he/she/it is also a God.


The you have things in the Bible like thou shall have no other God before me. thou shall have no other god or no other god but me. There could be other Gods.

Ok, here we go. First, let's notice the difference between God and god. Notice any difference? Wait, one is capitalized while the other is not? Excellent. On to my points...

1) The devil does have power, but he is not omnipotent (def=having unlimited power). He cannot see my thoughts, He cannot create life, and more but let's keep this simple. Also, his method of work is through deception. If he was omnipotent, why deceive when you can take immediate control? He is not omnipotent, not omniscient, no omnipresent, all he is is omniloser :D

2) God(emphasis on the capital letter) is a name given to Him among his others, including but not limited to King of Kings, Alpha and Omega, Yahweh (or yhwh for some), Yeshua(hebrew)(or in the greek Christos) meaning Messiah(hebrew) which in itself means annoited, or chosen. Now, god in the lowercase is, by one definition, a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people. In the lowercase, god is not unlike the word idol. Money can be a person's god.

3)Side detail you may want to consider, edit your post so I can tell the difference between God and god easier. You get them confused. There could be other Gods? You mean gods, and there are if you worship money, power, success. There is only one God (capital and notice the subtraction of the -s, meaning 1)(refer to point 2 also).

4) The "no other god" part refers to not worshiping something over him, i.e. money, your job, your car, a cat, etc.

I could go on, and really, if you want to chat sometime, let me know.

But the difference is that Yah (as any deity out of very ancient times) is an option while Yhvh is not. Yhvh is more like a certain Angel Moroni that a certain zealot pulled out of his butt for his own benefit.

So the age of a thing determines its legitimacy? Equally amusing.

So the existence and nature of a god depends on opinion? That only applis if gods are not real, doesn't it?

The existence and nature of a god doesn't depend on opinion. What qualifies for a definition of a god does. There is an enormous difference. You just desperately want to justify your irrational position, don't you?

We can all do that. If you are so desperate to make God not exist, he must exist in the first place, right? See how stupid that is.

Christianity wouldn't be such a problem for me if there were any (!) independent source to confirm anything (!) that the bible claims theologically/historically. But there is none. In fact there are only sources contradicting the bible. So who is to be trusted? The thousands of sources informing us about ancient history and ancient people's beliefs or one source arbitrarily put together by fanatical folks who had the once-in-a-lifetime chance to write an alternative history for the Jews that would give them some divinely justified historical significance among the true ancient superpowers of Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Egypt??

You crack me up. So basically, like every zealot that ever existed, your unsupportable beliefs are justified because the "evidence" you choose to accept is right and the "evidence" anyone else accepts is wrong. Stupid argument, FTW.

None of what you claim says anything about the existence or non-existence of any god. It only speaks to the historical accuracy of some of the stories that include those gods. That's all. Your extending your claims just like people who try to claim that evidence of a mass flood would somehow prove God is real.

That particular kind of religious zealotry has no place in a discussion based on rational thought.

So the age of a thing determines its legitimacy? Equally amusing.


No, it's that if I tell a story about a entity, if the story is false, then the entity doesn't exist. Forget how illogical that is, because I'm magical and can disprove the supernatural and perform the impossible. Fear my power!!!

So the existence and nature of a god depends on opinion? That only applis if gods are not real, doesn't it?

not on opinion but on the theological system you are using

but yeah i guess youre right, it does apply only if gods are not real.

if gods were real, we would be debating not on their definiton but on their identification.

is the well-known-to-exist creator of the universe jehova, allah, the trinity, brahma (or whoever it would be in hinduism) or enki? the differences are so great that it would be imperative to have the correct identification.

if we know that the gods are super-powerful beings who can make our lives difficult if we dont do the proper rituals, we would fight over who is powerful enough to qualify as a god. is athena powerful enough? if we follow her ritual requirements will she keep zeus off our backs? (for some of is, literally) if we toss some worship over to the furies will we get anything useful from it? its loki too fickle to bother with or should we always make sure to keep him happy?

if gods were real it would be a whole different ballgame.

snip.

You didn't read the thread, so I made it a point to forget your post after I read it. =)

.
1) The devil does have power, but he is not omnipotent (def=having unlimited power). He cannot see my thoughts, He cannot create life, and more but let's keep this simple. Also, his method of work is through deception. If he was omnipotent, why deceive when you can take immediate control? He is not omnipotent, not omniscient, no omnipresent, all he is is omniloser :D

2) God(emphasis on the capital letter) is a name given to Him among his others, including but not limited to King of Kings, Alpha and Omega, Yahweh (or yhwh for some), Yeshua(hebrew)(or in the greek Christos) meaning Messiah(hebrew) which in itself means annoited, or chosen. Now, god in the lowercase is, by one definition, a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people. In the lowercase, god is not unlike the word idol. Money can be a person's god.

3)Side detail you may want to consider, edit your post so I can tell the difference between God and god easier. You get them confused. There could be other Gods? You mean gods, and there are if you worship money, power, success. There is only one God (capital and notice the subtraction of the -s, meaning 1)(refer to point 2 also).

4) The "no other god" part refers to not worshiping something over him, i.e. money, your job, your car, a cat, etc.


1. Loki isn't omnipotent either. Nor is Angra Mainyu. And if Yahweh is omnipotent, he could just poof Satan out of existence.

2. That much depends on a capitalization? Most religions don't capitalize their gods' titles.

3. Are you denying the godship of Odin, Zeus, Athena, Thor, Frigg, Freya, Skadi and others? You can have many gods without worshipping "money, power, success" as you say by favoring a different pantheon. There is also a difference between believing in the existence of a god and worshipping that god. Among followers of Asatru, I doubt Loki is all that frequently worshipped in comparison to his fellows. Could be wrong, though.

4. Or could it mean worshiping other gods, such as Baal, Ra, Osiris, Ahura Mazda, Zeus, etc. over him?

as soon as they take up doing no harm, then we can talk. as it stands, they harm me, they harm their children, and they harm the world.

How do you figure? You clearly haven't been hit by an Islamic extremist's vest bomb recently, and I don't think you were a resident of Jerusalem in the late twelfth century, and obviously you don't live in a country that curtails individual freedoms based on religious beliefs...so how exactly are you being harmed? Just because you've decided that rational inquiry is the only way for people to think doesn't mean you should take the actions of violent religious people (an infinitesmal minority by the way) and say that all religious believers are somehow causing harm to you.

Read Kierkegaard, things will become clearer.

Christianity wouldn't be such a problem for me if there were any (!) independent source to confirm anything (!) that the bible claims theologically/historically. But there is none. In fact there are only sources contradicting the bible. So who is to be trusted? The thousands of sources informing us about ancient history and ancient people's beliefs or one source arbitrarily put together by fanatical folks who had the once-in-a-lifetime chance to write an alternative history for the Jews that would give them some divinely justified historical significance among the true ancient superpowers of Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Egypt??

Many of us believe that the Bible is not completely factual and accurate, because unless you take the entire thing literally and have quite a lot of faith and disregard quite a lot of science, you sorta have to.

Now, there are several sources that corroborate the stories in the Bible. We have accounts of the Babylonian captivity, various wars, famines, etc. in the Old Testament; there appears to be mounting scientific evidence for a massive flood that covered a great deal of Israel and the surrounding territories. The existence of many Old Testament prophets, such as Amos and Jonah, is confirmed. More importantly, there is much evidence that Jesus of Nazareth lived, preached, and was put to death by the very real Pontius Pilate.

1. Loki isn't omnipotent either. Nor is Angra Mainyu. And if Yahweh is omnipotent, he could just poof Satan out of existence.



4. Or could it mean worshiping other gods, such as Baal, Ra, Osiris, Ahura Mazda, Zeus, etc. over him?

Just because Yahweh could, doesn't mean Yahweh would. The fact that Satan "exists" does not disprove Yahweh's existence or omnipotence.

And yes, it could. But arguing what exactly God meant when he instructed Moses to write down the ten bylaws of his up-and-coming religion tends to be pointless and frustrating. One would have to ask God, now wouldn't one? The best one can do nowadays is to learn Hebrew to cut down on translation inaccuracy, but not being a Hebrew reader, I don't know if even that would be a huge help.

However, thousands of scholars, including many who are just great with the Hebrew language, have understood God's meaning to fit the description of monotheism, i.e. God intended for his followers to worship Him only, because there were no other gods.

But the fact of the matter is that while we do not know whether the other gods exist or don't, we know that the biblical god is a fabrication and has been entirely made up.


... and how do we know this? where did we come by this information?

And what the heck do you mean with Babel? Eridu?
Oh, and Jesus' name is Yeshua.

when god seperated the people by creating different languages

Just because Yahweh could, doesn't mean Yahweh would. The fact that Satan "exists" does not disprove Yahweh's existence or omnipotence.

And yes, it could. But arguing what exactly God meant when he instructed Moses to write down the ten bylaws of his up-and-coming religion tends to be pointless and frustrating. One would have to ask God, now wouldn't one? The best one can do nowadays is to learn Hebrew to cut down on translation inaccuracy, but not being a Hebrew reader, I don't know if even that would be a huge help.

However, thousands of scholars, including many who are just great with the Hebrew language, have understood God's meaning to fit the description of monotheism, i.e. God intended for his followers to worship Him only, because there were no other gods.

He says he's a jealous god though. I think he probably doesn't want anything getting worshiped above him, god or no.

Source?

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/ - one of many, search around and read a bit of it

to reiterate an earlier point

It seems to me part of the argument has to do with the a misconception of what free will actually is. Let me break it down on the whole devil argument.


Free will is essentially the ability to Deny God's existance and deny his commandments. Something alot of people do on a daily basis. Speaking as a Christian here, God is the one true God, and all others have been made up as the world has progressed from the Babel. The ability to deny god, is something the Angel's cannot do.

Lucifer aka the devil, aka most unclean, etc, was Gods favorite angel. Lucifer was the most beautiful angel ever created. He never denied God, he told god that he was no longer needed, and some angles sided with Lucifer and most with God causing a war in heaven. Michael, going with the catholic version on this, fought lucifer and cast him from heaven along with all his followers.

Lucifer is a sentient being, he \can pretty much do as he pleases. He can affect your life any way he wants. The whole adam and eve thing, wasnt, planned out by God, but God knew it was going to happen. He gave us the ability to use our free will, knowing full well what the outcome would be. The Serpent is Identified as Satan in the Book of Revelations. God said to Satan after Adam and Eve ate from the tree, in Genesis 3:15 "I will put emnity between your offspring and hers, he will crush your head and you will strike his heel" What we have here, is the first Prophecy pertaining to Jesus Christ. See when God gave us free will, he knew we wouldnt be able to live up to his commandments. Our own nature pulls us away from God.

This is where Jesus comes in. Jesus came to earth in around 3 BC (The calender is off). Jesus had existed since the beggining. He was part of the trinity from the beginning. But god took on flesh, in the form of a babe and we called him Jesus, (which is infact his Greek Name, i think his hebrew name was Emanuel? ((anyone know?)) ) Jesus is the only human being to live a sin free life. See sin, is basically us turning from God and his commandments. Jesus, never sinned in his life.

Now God has always asked for Sacrifice as repayment of sins, going back to Abraham. God gave him a commandment and Abraham would have sacrificed his own son but God was only testing him and told him to instead sacrifice a Lamb, which he did. And Jews would constantly sacrifice animals for repayment of sins. This is wher ethe whole Sacrifice on teh Cross comes into play. God did what he stopped Abraham from doing, and sacrificed his own son, and on him placed the sins of the world current and all future sins. Chirst was crucified, for our sins. as john 3:16 states "For God so loved the world that he gavr his only begotten son, so that those who believe in him may not perish but have eternal life."

And romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal Life in Christ Jesus our Lord"

Those who die with sin on their concience cannot enter heaven. But by accepting Christ sacrifice your sins our forgivin.

Now this is where the Devil comes back into play. People think the Devil is trying to defeat God. But thats a common misconeption. Satan has read the back of the book just like the rest of us. He knows he's gonna lose. So now, his purpose, is to deter as many of us as possible from knowing God. Basically the "I'm going down and im taking as many as i can with me" approach. But through faith in Jesus Christ, he has no power over your soul. Yeah he can make your life pretty damn hard, but he cant stop your salvation.

He says he's a jealous god though. I think he probably doesn't want anything getting worshiped above him, god or no.

ah but we tend to worship all kinds of things dont we. money power, the real point that the law makes here, is that God must be the priority in one's life. He wants you to put HIM before everything else.

there is a story that many people like to twist to say that God wants people to give away all their money, and that rich cant get into heaven, many skeptics follow this.

a boy approached Jesus in jerusalem and he said "lord what must i do to follow you, i honor all the comandments and i honor my mother and father" and Jesus said "one thing you lack, go and sell all your belongings and then come and follow me" the boy went away dissappointed, and Jesus turned to his deciples and said "see how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven"


This story illustrates the 1st Commandment. The boy put money above God, he worshipped his money over God, and God doesnt like that, you must put him first in your life.

Depends on the browser. Mine just wipes it clean.

ah..I use firefox. :cool:

People think the Devil is trying to defeat God. But thats a common misconeption. Satan has read the back of the book just like the rest of us. He knows he's gonna lose. So now, his purpose, is to deter as many of us as possible from knowing God.

I missed ya, SoT. It's been a long, long while.

Now, per this part ... this would basically make Bush and Co. smarter than God since God's telling the terrorists how to win?

The trick is to wait 'em out. And remember that VP Dick Cheney has the right idea to classify / treat as classified anything that god might be whispering to any idiot with a quill.
...hmmm Opus Dei or something like that?

Many of us believe that the Bible is not completely factual and accurate, because unless you take the entire thing literally and have quite a lot of faith and disregard quite a lot of science, you sorta have to.Then why would anybody believe in the concept of god that the bible offers? If its accuracy cannot be trusted why does anyone trust its accuracy when it comes to "God"?

Now, there are several sources that corroborate the stories in the Bible. We have accounts of the Babylonian captivity, various wars, famines, etc. in the Old Testament; there appears to be mounting scientific evidence for a massive flood that covered a great deal of Israel and the surrounding territories. The existence of many Old Testament prophets, such as Amos and Jonah, is confirmed. More importantly, there is much evidence that Jesus of Nazareth lived, preached, and was put to death by the very real Pontius Pilate.There are no sources to confrim anything that the bible claims about the existence, character, and nature of the biblical god. That's the point I was referring to. The fact alone that Yhvh used to have a wife renders the biblical theological approch invalid.
BTW there is also definitely no source for any flood covering Israel.

Then why would anybody believe in the concept of god that the bible offers? If its accuracy cannot be trusted why does anyone trust its accuracy when it comes to "God"?

Faith. I know it's hard to believe, but occasionally faith accounts for religious beliefs.

Then there is the fact that the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural being has NOTHING to do with whether or not stories about that being are accurate. But, why start applying logic to your rants, right?

There are no sources to confrim anything that the bible claims about the existence, character, and nature of the biblical god. That's the point I was referring to. The fact alone that Yhvh used to have a wife renders the biblical theological approch invalid.
BTW there is also definitely no source for any flood covering Israel.

And, folks, here is where you can witness how UB only attacks the weak arguments. He just pretends the strong arguments never happened.

ah..I use firefox. :cool:

I used to, but it's such a resource hog. I actually kinda like IE7. It's got most of the functionality and most of the security right there, and it fewer resources.

How do you figure?

have you looked at usian politics in the past couple of decades?

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Christianity and Judaism both refer to other gods. Abrahamic religions declare no other gods can be worshipped but God. It's not the same thing.

Meanwhile, monotheistic and polytheistic are studious designations. I can claim that I follow atheistic religion but if I'm worshipping the great sky spirit, I'm simply wrong.

I agree that to some degree the definition of a god, like the definition of love, like the definition of many intangibles, is up for grabs, but you can't just call anything god or declare that your religion doesn't have gods, doesn't have multiple gods, has a god, has multiple gods, because you say so. To some degree, terms have to have some level of agreed upon meaning.

It's also not true that Abrahamic religions don't define God in a way that some who favor Abrahamic religions wouldn't claim that some versions are polytheistic.

I know many, many Abrahamics that hold that the devil and the war in heaven are allegorical, precisely because they believe that in claims of a literal war and a literal devil would polytheistic and goes against the very idea of an omnipotent God. In order for a devil, who knows the properties of God, to start a war in heaven, he wouldn't just have to be prideful, he'd have to be completely and utterly incapable of understanding omnipotent, OR he would have to know that God is not, in fact, omnipotent and defeating God is actually possible. The entire thing doesn't make sense in a literal way, but more as a cautionary tale, of which we find many in the Bible.
I'm sorry, Jocabia, but I think you are splitting hairs. That's probably appropriate for this conversation but I don't think you are splitting the right hairs.

1) I have already pointed out that - limitations of language being what they are - people commonly use the same word, and mean totally conflicting, contradictory things by it. So "god" and "god" don't always mean the same thing, even when used in the same book, or even the same sentence.

2) You say that Christianity and Judaism recognize the existence of other gods. I assume you are referring to phrases such as "no other gods before me" and similar references in the Bible. You are certainly not the only person to assert that, but that argument is undermined by ongoing scholarly debates over whether current versions of the Bible are even correct translations of original texts. I personally am not comfortable making broad statements about what a religion believes about its own fundamental, foundational theology, if we cannot even be certain of what, precisely, that religion says. Perhaps you are right, but I do not know that and will not accept it until I see that it is the prevailing majority opinion among competent authorities. Sorry, but that's my personal brand of conservatism. As it stands, your opinion is not the prevailing majority view.

TO BE CLEAR: You may recall other occasions in which I have agreed that your assertion is likely, but in those cases, we were discussing ancient Judaism in the context of the cultures of ancient times, and my agreement was based on my understanding of cultural writings of those times and what they implied about how people spoke about religions other than their own, back then. This has nothing to do with the theology of Judaism and Christianity of today, which is what I believe we are discussing now. (Frankly, I don't think it had anything to do with their theologies back in the day, either; just a matter of politeness, really, imo.)

3) I strongly disagree with your statement that "you can't just call anything god or declare that your religion doesn't have gods, doesn't have multiple gods, has a god, has multiple gods, because you say so. To some degree, terms have to have some level of agreed upon meaning."

If I, or competent authorities in my religion, cannot say what my religion is about, then who, pray tell, can? Who would you say is more competent than me to tell me what I believe?

For instance, as an animist, I most certainly can "call anything god," or a god at any rate. I can base a whole cult around a telephone, if I believe it deserves it, and I can disband that cult a month later, if the divinity moves on, out of that particular phone. If you would say that I can't do that, you would only be showing your ignorance of animism and how it relates to the divine and what it believes a god to be. (I'm exaggerating slightly with that example, but it is true in principle and would be particularly true if I followed Shinto.)

All this goes back to the argument Ashmoria has been making all along - that it is not only impossible but also wrong (factually and, I would argue, possibly even ethically) to try to agree on one universal definition of "god" and have it apply to all religions and be used to define the god(s) and beliefs of all religions. Her argument has been that this makes debates such as this impossible. My argument has been that they are possible but very difficult because of the constant explaining that must be done.

4) Given the list of things you think a person cannot do with their religion just on their own say-so, and the immediate example I gave of how you are wrong about them, I think your requirement that "To some degree, terms have to have some level of agreed upon meaning" is in trouble. We may indeed need to find some common jargon to use for discussions such as this, but I do not think you will succeed if you are trying to define what a god is and what it is not for all people.

So the existence and nature of a god depends on opinion?
Reading is your friend:

Originally Posted by Muravyets
Public opinion. If enough people think you are just simply SUPER-DUPER-LICIOUS and TOO-TOO-VERY-VERY, you too may be declared a demi-god by your fans.

Also, being a fictional character (like Herakles) helps. Novelists can say anything they like about the heroes they make up.
Demi-gods are not gods. Technically.

But in essence, yes. The existence and nature of all gods are matters of pure opinion on the parts of both their worshippers and their detractors, depending on who you're talking to.

That only applis if gods are not real, doesn't it?
People have opinions about Scooby-Doo. I guess that must mean he's real, huh? I better invest in Scooby Snacks before it's too late.

EDIT: Whoops I missed a word there. (Reading is my friend, too.) You're saying "not real." OK, let me edit: People have opinions about Dick Cheney. That must mean he's not real!!! YAY!!! *does happy dance*

You've been throwing out this "real"/"not real" [edit] thing for a while now in this thread. I really don't know what you hope to accomplish by it.

Christianity wouldn't be such a problem for me if there were any (!) independent source to confirm anything (!) that the bible claims theologically/historically. But there is none. In fact there are only sources contradicting the bible. So who is to be trusted? The thousands of sources informing us about ancient history and ancient people's beliefs or one source arbitrarily put together by fanatical folks who had the once-in-a-lifetime chance to write an alternative history for the Jews that would give them some divinely justified historical significance among the true ancient superpowers of Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Egypt??
The exact same criticism can be applied to every single religion that is or ever was on the planet, including your precious Mesopotamians, Anatolians and Egyptians. So the fuck what?

If you only have this problem with Christianity, what did the other religions do to satisfy you? Or are you just claiming this as some BS reason to bust Christians' nuts?

But the difference is that Yah (as any deity out of very ancient times) is an option while Yhvh is not. Yhvh is more like a certain Angel Moroni that a certain zealot pulled out of his butt for his own benefit.
Right. And no one benefitted themselves by the claimed but unproven existence of Yah. There was no such thing as a clerical profession or class in ancient cultures, and even if there was, Somebody-Up-
There knows they never made any money off it. Right. :rolleyes:

Personally, I don't hold with Mormonism, but I fail to see how one man claiming a vision of an angel with a humorous name is any less valid than one man (or a whole temple of them) claiming to channel the opinions of a god to a king via goat entrails.

So the age of a thing determines its legitimacy? Equally amusing.
Well, of course, because everybody knows ancient people were too simple, pure and primitive to engage in personal gain, politics, or bullshit.

Oh, wait...

all this arguing is futile.. God cannot be defined... it's like a man born blind trying to define yellow, or a 1 dimensional line trying to describe a triangle. It just doesn't make sense. God is beyond us all.. it's foolish for us to believe we could even BEGIN to wrap our minds around God. All this debate over theology and definitions gets people nowhere. This is all the fault of the Romans. The Romans did to Christianity what MTV did to rock and roll. They screwed with it big time. I myself am a Christian btw.

all this arguing is futile.. God cannot be defined... it's like a man born blind trying to define yellow, or a 1 dimensional line trying to describe a triangle. It just doesn't make sense. God is beyond us all.. it's foolish for us to believe we could even BEGIN to wrap our minds around God. All this debate over theology and definitions gets people nowhere. This is all the fault of the Romans. The Romans did to Christianity what MTV did to rock and roll. They screwed with it big time. I myself am a Christian btw.
Don't knock the Romans. The only reason you have a church is because they decided to start screwing with it and stop murdering its followers.

I'm sorry, Jocabia, but I think you are splitting hairs. That's probably appropriate for this conversation but I don't think you are splitting the right hairs.

1) I have already pointed out that - limitations of language being what they are - people commonly use the same word, and mean totally conflicting, contradictory things by it. So "god" and "god" don't always mean the same thing, even when used in the same book, or even the same sentence.

2) You say that Christianity and Judaism recognize the existence of other gods. I assume you are referring to phrases such as "no other gods before me" and similar references in the Bible. You are certainly not the only person to assert that, but that argument is undermined by ongoing scholarly debates over whether current versions of the Bible are even correct translations of original texts. I personally am not comfortable making broad statements about what a religion believes about its own fundamental, foundational theology, if we cannot even be certain of what, precisely, that religion says. Perhaps you are right, but I do not know that and will not accept it until I see that it is the prevailing majority opinion among competent authorities. Sorry, but that's my personal brand of conservatism. As it stands, your opinion is not the prevailing majority view.

I'm not saying that the Bible supports the EXISTENCE of other gods. It simply references the belief in other gods, which even if you claim the Bible is translated wrong, speaks to the belief among those that follow the Bible, particularly that part of the Bible which is pretty commonly held among my religion, that those other gods, with VERY different properties from God can be considered gods. And it's clearly that usage applies in the referenced theos part of polytheism or monotheism. You can't deny that definition broadly as you did while that part of the Bible is so widely accepted among the religion. The definition of god is not as narrow as you portrayed in Abrahamic religions. There is no getting around this.


TO BE CLEAR: You may recall other occasions in which I have agreed that your assertion is likely, but in those cases, we were discussing ancient Judaism in the context of the cultures of ancient times, and my agreement was based on my understanding of cultural writings of those times and what they implied about how people spoke about religions other than their own, back then. This has nothing to do with the theology of Judaism and Christianity of today, which is what I believe we are discussing now. (Frankly, I don't think it had anything to do with their theologies back in the day, either; just a matter of politeness, really, imo.)

3) I strongly disagree with your statement that "you can't just call anything god or declare that your religion doesn't have gods, doesn't have multiple gods, has a god, has multiple gods, because you say so. To some degree, terms have to have some level of agreed upon meaning."

If I, or competent authorities in my religion, cannot say what my religion is about, then who, pray tell, can? Who would you say is more competent than me to tell me what I believe?

You can say what it is about. But you can't single-handedly redefine words, particularly scholarly words like atheist, monotheist, polytheist. Language would become meaningless if you could just declare everything means only what you declare it to mean. You can define your religion as you wish, but that is not a defense for the improper use of language to describe your religion.


For instance, as an animist, I most certainly can "call anything god," or a god at any rate. I can base a whole cult around a telephone, if I believe it deserves it, and I can disband that cult a month later, if the divinity moves on, out of that particular phone. If you would say that I can't do that, you would only be showing your ignorance of animism and how it relates to the divine and what it believes a god to be. (I'm exaggerating slightly with that example, but it is true in principle and would be particularly true if I followed Shinto.)

This is a fairly silly example. We're not talking about what a religion can and cannot do. We're talking about whether or not the language is appropriate. You've quite seriously strayed from the point.


All this goes back to the argument Ashmoria has been making all along - that it is not only impossible but also wrong (factually and, I would argue, possibly even ethically) to try to agree on one universal definition of "god" and have it apply to all religions and be used to define the god(s) and beliefs of all religions. Her argument has been that this makes debates such as this impossible. My argument has been that they are possible but very difficult because of the constant explaining that must be done.

You've mixed like 50 points here, most of which have nothing to do with the language. There is a core meaning even if some aspects change. You can claiim that the word, god, means sibling and that if you have multiple siblings you're a polytheist, but, frankly, no matter how loudly or frequently you say it, we'd laugh and point. The word, god, has to some degree an agreed upon meaning. The nuances of that meaning are quite important but the core simply isn't going to change.



4) Given the list of things you think a person cannot do with their religion just on their own say-so, and the immediate example I gave of how you are wrong about them, I think your requirement that "To some degree, terms have to have some level of agreed upon meaning" is in trouble. We may indeed need to find some common jargon to use for discussions such as this, but I do not think you will succeed if you are trying to define what a god is and what it is not for all people.

If you were speaking to my point, you'd have actually done something here, but since I'm not talking about what people can and cannot do in their religion, but instead the meaning of language, the whole of this post is lost in the amount of time you spend not speaking to anything I was actually talking about.

Amusingly, you talk about the specifics of actions and beliefs and not about language and then pretend that such an example discusses how individuals can redefine the language, particularly scholarly language. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to try again. Would you care to try?

Reading is your friend:


Demi-gods are not gods. Technically.

But in essence, yes. The existence and nature of all gods are matters of pure opinion on the parts of both their worshippers and their detractors, depending on who you're talking to.


People have opinions about Scooby-Doo. I guess that must mean he's real, huh? I better invest in Scooby Snacks before it's too late.

EDIT: Whoops I missed a word there. (Reading is my friend, too.) You're saying "not real." OK, let me edit: People have opinions about Dick Cheney. That must mean he's not real!!! YAY!!! *does happy dance*

You've been throwing out this "real"/"not real" [edit] thing for a while now in this thread. I really don't know what you hope to accomplish by it.

He wants to justify his zealotry about the non-existence of God. He'll justify it a number of ways all of which fail at logic. One is that if I tell a story about God and you prove that story is wrong or a lie, then God doesn't exist. Of course, if we were talking about James Spader, we'd all recognize the fallacy of such a claim. Another is that if you can define what God means to you then God must not be real. Again, he fails to recognize the fallacy or claiming that a limitation of our knowledge of something somehow defines it. They used to have very differening views on the nature of the atom, and most of the differences, due to the limitations of our ability to study it at the time, were nothing more than educated opinions. Still doesn't change the fact the atom exists.

You practically have to suspend standard rules if you're going to take UB's I can prove God doesn't exist argument seriously.

God cannot be defined... Why not? And why do claim thus?

So the age of a thing determines its legitimacy? Equally amusing.No, why? I did not say nor imply that. I am only saying that I am rather inclined to believe in a god that has a multitude of sources than believing in a god that has only one source and no past.

The exact same criticism can be applied to every single religion that is or ever was on the planetNo, it cannot. What makes you say that?

Reading is your friend:


Demi-gods are not gods. Technically.

But in essence, yes. The existence and nature of all gods are matters of pure opinion on the parts of both their worshippers and their detractors, depending on who you're talking to.You seem to confuse "being called a god" with "being a god". I am talking about the latter. The nature of things does not depend on what they are called. I wanted to know what the real distinguishing characteristics are that divide demi-gods from gods. If you say that demi-dos are not technically gods, you need to be able to tell me your criteria for this distinction.
btw Heracles is not entirely fictional.

You've been throwing out this "real"/"not real" [edit] thing for a while now in this thread. I really don't know what you hope to accomplish by it.We are talking about reality here. That what humanity's quest for knowledge is all about. We want to know what things exist and how. Religion is a part of this attempt to find out. What religions say about gods and their interaction with humans (and everything else) must be judged by the actual existence of the gods that are referred to here. Now while we cannot be sure about gods that have been worshiped since times before the invention of writing and thus the reliable transportation of information, we can be sure about gods (and other figures out of the divine sphere, such as angels and demons) that have been made up entirely in comparatively late ages (such as the biblical god or the Angel Moroni or the dictator Xenu) and that have no occurrence in times prior to the existence of those texts that mention/describe them. We don't know whether Enki, Enlil, Atum, Ptah, etc are real, but we are able to know that Yhvh, Moroni, and Xenu are not.

We are talking about reality here. That what humanity's quest for knowledge is all about. We want to know what things exist and how. Religion is a part of this attempt to find out. What religions say about gods and their interaction with humans (and everything else) must be judged by the actual existence of the gods that are referred to here. Now while we cannot be sure about gods that have been worshiped since times before the invention of writing and thus the reliable transportation of information, we can be sure about gods (and other figures out of the divine sphere, such as angels and demons) that have been made up entirely in comparatively late ages (such as the biblical god or the Angel Moroni or the dictator Xenu) and that have no occurrence in times prior to the existence of those texts that mention/describe them. We don't know whether Enki, Enlil, Atum, Ptah, etc are real, but we are able to know that Yhvh, Moroni, and Xenu are not.

the thing i dont understand is not your denial of the existence of yaweh, moroni and xenu, but your holding out hope for enki, enlil, atum, ptah, etc.

what are your thoughts on these ancient gods that so little is known about?

the thing i dont understand is not your denial of the existence of yaweh, moroni and xenu, but your holding out hope for enki, enlil, atum, ptah, etc.
what are your thoughts on these ancient gods that so little is known about?What do you mean by "so little is known about" ?? You rather mean the abrahamic religions have caused you not to care and thus learn about them.

You seem to confuse "being called a god" with "being a god". I am talking about the latter. The nature of things does not depend on what they are called. I wanted to know what the real distinguishing characteristics are that divide demi-gods from gods. If you say that demi-dos are not technically gods, you need to be able to tell me your criteria for this distinction.
btw Heracles is not entirely fictional.

We are talking about reality here. That what humanity's quest for knowledge is all about. We want to know what things exist and how. Religion is a part of this attempt to find out. What religions say about gods and their interaction with humans (and everything else) must be judged by the actual existence of the gods that are referred to here. Now while we cannot be sure about gods that have been worshiped since times before the invention of writing and thus the reliable transportation of information, we can be sure about gods (and other figures out of the divine sphere, such as angels and demons) that have been made up entirely in comparatively late ages (such as the biblical god or the Angel Moroni or the dictator Xenu) and that have no occurrence in times prior to the existence of those texts that mention/describe them. We don't know whether Enki, Enlil, Atum, Ptah, etc are real, but we are able to know that Yhvh, Moroni, and Xenu are not.

Seriously, this is just dumb. There are a billion reasons wy knowledge of an actual existing god would not necessarily exist from the beginning of time. A lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

You cannot KNOW that certain gods aren't real. It requires a leap of faith and suspension of logic that we should only expect from zealots.

What do you mean by "so little is known about" ?? You rather mean the abrahamic religions have caused you not to care and thus learn about them.

you have not answered my question.

Jesus came to earth in around 3 BC (The calender is off).

How do you work that out? In 3BC:

-Herod was dead.
-There was no census.
-Quirinius wasn't governor.

Basic christianity teaches that god has three aspects in the father son and holy ghost yadda yadda.... Satan or Lucifer (who odly enough was the name of the Roman god of light) is not divine and hence not a true god. So no, christianity is monotheistic.

I will agrre if someone said Catholisism was monotheistic... saints are tantamount to demi-dieties and one of thier chief precepts is that you must pray to god through one of the saints....

Or does that just make saints basically secretaries?

Basic christianity teaches that god has three aspects in the father son and holy ghost yadda yadda.... Satan or Lucifer (who odly enough was the name of the Roman god of light) is not divine and hence not a true god. So no, christianity is monotheistic.

I will agrre if someone said Catholisism was monotheistic... saints are tantamount to demi-dieties and one of thier chief precepts is that you must pray to god through one of the saints....

the saints are like having your sister ask mommy if you can go to the fair because you think she will turn it down if you ask.

the saints are like calling up your congressman to get him to suggets something to the president because you have more pull with your congressman and he has more pull with the president.

the saints are like having your innocent friend go into the principal's office to ask about the punishment for an offence that you committed but arent ready to fess up about.

there is no need to ever ask for the saints to intercede for you. any catholic can (and does) pray directly to god. its just that its comforting to think that you might have someone up there pulling for you.

Or does that just make saints basically secretaries?

the saints are like having your sister ask mommy if you can go to the fair because you think she will turn it down if you ask.

the saints are like calling up your congressman to get him to suggets something to the president because you have more pull with your congressman and he has more pull with the president.

the saints are like having your innocent friend go into the principal's office to ask about the punishment for an offence that you committed but arent ready to fess up about.

there is no need to ever ask for the saints to intercede for you. any catholic can (and does) pray directly to god. its just that its comforting to think that you might have someone up there pulling for you.

So basically secretaries...

A lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

yes it is. for example, if i propose that there is some entity that exists and has certain properties and will in some way be observable in certain circumstances, and then isn't so observed, that is absolutely evidence of lack.

You cannot KNOW that certain gods aren't real. It requires a leap of faith and suspension of logic that we should only expect from zealots.

does it require a suspension of logic to claim that you know there aren't any unicorns? do only zealots claim that there isn't a tiny teapot in orbit between the earth and mars? the standard for knowledge this statement seems to require is ludicrous.

So basically secretaries...

no. more like...proven friends of god.

they really dont control access to god but if you are in a scrape and you pray to st. jude, the patron saint of lost causes, he might put in a good word for you with his good friend god.

its an odd view of heaven but some people need to think of it as a more human place than others do.

no. more like...proven friends of god.

they really dont control access to god but if you are in a scrape and you pray to st. jude, the patron saint of lost causes, he might put in a good word for you with his good friend god.

its an odd view of heaven but some people need to think of it as a more human place than others do.

Well see if you bug the secretary enough they eventually tell thier boss to take the call :p.

I'm just being non-constructive. Your description is prolly the best I've ever gotten... not going to convert me mind you but its a good explanation. Kudos.

Well see if you bug the secretary enough they eventually tell thier boss to take the call :p.

I'm just being non-constructive. Your description is prolly the best I've ever gotten... not going to convert me mind you but its a good explanation. Kudos.

if one is a christian, catholicism has much to recommend it. but its not for everyone. luckily there are many many other denominations to choose from that might fit you better.

but isnt it a shame to be a protestant and know that there are good friends of jesus "sitting around" up there who are being ignored by christians on earth when they would be happy to put in a good word for you?

what else do st peter and st paul have to do?

no. more like...proven friends of god.

they really dont control access to god but if you are in a scrape and you pray to st. jude, the patron saint of lost causes, he might put in a good word for you with his good friend god.

of course, god is supposed to be all-knowing anyway, so it's not like he isn't aware of either the problem or the fact that st jude will be calling him up about it shortly.

of course, god is supposed to be all-knowing anyway, so it's not like he isn't aware of either the problem or the fact that st jude will be calling him up about it shortly.

of course.

but that doesnt keep a person from hoping it will help.

yes it is. for example, if i propose that there is some entity that exists and has certain properties and will in some way be observable in certain circumstances, and then isn't so observed, that is absolutely evidence of lack.

Then that would be actually evidence. That's not a lack of evidence. Saying I've never seen anything to prove something I would likely never see is not evidence. There is a significant difference. You are talking about collecting specific evidence.

You tell me exactly when I could predictably witness the actions of God so as to collect the type of evidence you're talking about. Because absent that, you have a lack of evidence, which IS NOT evidence of lack.



does it require a suspension of logic to claim that you know there aren't any unicorns? do only zealots claim that there isn't a tiny teapot in orbit between the earth and mars? the standard for knowledge this statement seems to require is ludicrous.

Unicorns would be observable. And if they weren't, yes, it would require a suspension of logic to claim they don't exist. Again, logic dictates that something I would be unable to observe cannot provide my evidence of lack simply by not being observed. You're the person declaring that we cannot break down matter any further because we cannot observe anything smaller, like people have through history. It's a faulty conclusion.

I cannot logically or scientifically declare there is a God, because I am simply unable to draw that conclusion. You can't declare that there is NO god because you are simply unable to draw that conclusion. Unlike your faulty example we are talking about something that cannot be observed.

I talked to Deus about this yesterday. It's faulty to claim that non-existence is the default. It's a positive assertion. The default position is to not claim knowledge you cannot have and have no evidence for.

of course.

but that doesnt keep a person from hoping it will help.

I agree. Prayer is for the benefit of the person praying. It reconnects you with your faith and reminds you of what you have and what you need. Or should. It should be for personal benefit (benefit from the act. I'm not talking about praying for a car). This, I think, is why Jesus promoted it being a personal activity.

I find it sad that when it comes to areas of faith, that otherwise rational people seem to forget how reason works.

People who claim that God exists because he can't be proven false are guilty of an argument from ignorance fallacy. People who claim that God doesn't exist because he can't be proven to exist are guilty of the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true. He adds, A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence. - Irving Copi

As pointed out here, in cases where evidence would NECESSARILY exist, one can make the argument that not finding that evidence is evidence for the opposite. However, in cases where that is not true, there is not logical way to conclude ANYTHING other than our inability to reach a conclusion.

I find it sad that when it comes to areas of faith, that otherwise rational people seem to forget how reason works.

People who claim that God exists because he can't be proven false are guilty of an argument from ignorance fallacy. People who claim that God doesn't exist because he can't be proven to exist are guilty of the same.

sure. but that doesn't change the fact that an utter lack of evidence for a thing, despite the best efforts of countless people of many many years is actually very very good evidence that the thing doesn't exist. which is precisely the case with all the various gods besides a couple philosophical constructs that nobody believes in which cannot even in principle be observed. and those happen to have some rather interesting problems themselves.

As pointed out here, in cases where evidence would NECESSARILY exist, one can make the argument that not finding that evidence is evidence for the opposite. However, in cases where that is not true, there is not logical way to conclude ANYTHING other than our inability to reach a conclusion.

but again, this means we have to be agnostic about really distant tiny orbiting teapots. this is nonsensical. assuming that there really aren't any out there, we are perfectly justified in making the epistemic claim to know that there aren't.

sure. but that doesn't change the fact that an utter lack of evidence for a thing, despite the best efforts of countless people of many many years is actually very very good evidence that the thing doesn't exist. which is precisely the case with all the various gods besides a couple philosophical constructs that nobody believes in which cannot even in principle be observed. and those happen to have some rather interesting problems themselves.



but again, this means we have to be agnostic about really distant tiny orbiting teapots. this is nonsensical. assuming that there really aren't any out there, we are perfectly justified in making the epistemic claim to know that there aren't.

while we cant know if there is a class of supernatural beings that live so far outside our realm of existence that our science will never be able to show their existence, we CAN know that certain gods or ideas about gods are not true.

we know that the literal interpretation of the bible is false and that those who make that claim are wrong. only a non-literal symbolic interpretation of the bible can stand up to scrutiny.

but if big chunks of the bible are for sure wrong (or not meant to be taken literally) then how are we to be sure that the rest is true (or meant to be taken literally)?

if we can climb mt olympus and find no gods there. if we know the scientific origins of lightning, can we not be certain that the stories of zeus are false?

sure there is plenty of room for belief but not where the truth of a belief can be objectively tested. then all religions fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism#Christian_view
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Ch1.htm
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38222/monotheism
http://www.google.com/search?q=christianity+and+monotheism&hl=en&start=20&sa=N

Well, what do you know. Lots of sources call Christianity monotheistic, even with the Trinitarian Monotheistic deity. ;)

sure. but that doesn't change the fact that an utter lack of evidence for a thing, despite the best efforts of countless people of many many years is actually very very good evidence that the thing doesn't exist. which is precisely the case with all the various gods besides a couple philosophical constructs that nobody believes in which cannot even in principle be observed. and those happen to have some rather interesting problems themselves.



but again, this means we have to be agnostic about really distant tiny orbiting teapots. this is nonsensical. assuming that there really aren't any out there, we are perfectly justified in making the epistemic claim to know that there aren't.


Dude, it's a logical fallacy. There would be evidence for the stories involving gods, but not necessarily for the gods themselves. Claiming otherwise is a logical fallacy.

It's not sort of a logical fallacy. It's not that it might be a logical fallacy. It's a logical fallacy by definition. You can say that it's reasonable to behave as if it's true. But to assert it as true and claim that your assertion is backed by a lack of evidence for something we can have no evidence for is a logical fallacy. Your lack of acceptance really doesn't do anything for your agument. It just shows you don't actually understand the rules of logic. At least not well enough to even avoid the most clear fallacies.

sure. but that doesn't change the fact that an utter lack of evidence for a thing, despite the best efforts of countless people of many many years is actually very very good evidence that the thing doesn't exist. which is precisely the case with all the various gods besides a couple philosophical constructs that nobody believes in which cannot even in principle be observed. and those happen to have some rather interesting problems themselves.


but again, this means we have to be agnostic about really distant tiny orbiting teapots. this is nonsensical. assuming that there really aren't any out there, we are perfectly justified in making the epistemic claim to know that there aren't.
"Best efforts," are you kidding? What are these best efforts, pray tell?

In assuming things, we are perfectly justified in knowing things?

I'm not saying that the Bible supports the EXISTENCE of other gods. It simply references the belief in other gods, which even if you claim the Bible is translated wrong, speaks to the belief among those that follow the Bible, particularly that part of the Bible which is pretty commonly held among my religion, that those other gods, with VERY different properties from God can be considered gods. And it's clearly that usage applies in the referenced theos part of polytheism or monotheism. You can't deny that definition broadly as you did while that part of the Bible is so widely accepted among the religion. The definition of god is not as narrow as you portrayed in Abrahamic religions. There is no getting around this.

Jocabia, my friend, you seem to be the one dancing around things.

First: A commonly held view that other gods are gods? I have never heard or read anything of the sort. I challenge your basis for that remark. Are you basing it on Bible references? Then why do you continue to ignore my point that people use words in inaccurate ways? I would think this entire thread would be proof enough of that assertion of mine. If people use the word "god" in inaccurate or inconsistent ways, then the mere usage of the word is not enough to prove anything about what people believe, one way or another.

Just because the various English translations of the Bible may use the word "god" to describe something that other people believed in -- such as the gods of Egypt -- does not in any way prove that (a) ancient Christians believed those gods were gods, or (b) that modern Christians believe that they are gods, or (c) frankly, even that the writers of the English versions of the Bible believed that they were gods. It is far more likely, in my opinion, that other people's gods are referred to as gods solely because "god" is the English word that best describes what those other people thought the things they worshipped were. It implies nothing at all about whether Christians or Jews thought they were real or delusions or what.

Second: I make no claims about what the Bible supports or does not support. In understanding the nature of a religion, I go by what the practitioners of that religion say about it, and I look for the greatest agreement among acknowledged authorities within the religion and then look at how that jibes with the general practice of the religion. On this basis, I challenge you to show me any generally accepted documentation - any catechism, prayerbook, passage of the Bible, documented sermon, writings of Christian philosophers, theologians, etc. - that states that within Christian belief there is more than one god.

You must remember that we are not talking about the usage of a word here. We are talking about what Christianity is. That is the topic of the thread.

So, when references are made to the gods of other religions, do we actually know that the writers of those references actually believed those gods to exist? Or are we merely assuming that to be the case?

If we know for a fact that Christians believe there to be more than one god, then Christianity may indeed be polytheistic, if we define "polytheistic" as believing in more than one god, despite worshipping only one.

However, if we do not know that Christians believe more than one god exists, then, to be blunt, we are talking out our ass. Because the fact of the matter is, Christians say they only believe in one god, and no matter how they use or misuse words in various translations of texts or even in their common speech, you cannot know better than them what is in their minds.

If Christians tell me that they are monotheists, I will take them at their word. If the majority of competent Christian authorities over time agree that Christianity believes in only on god, I will take them at their word, especially if the majority of practicing Christians back them up with their words and their behavior. If you come along and tell me that, despite all that, Christianity recognizes that other "gods" are indeed gods, I am sorry, I must compare that to what others say and conclude that yours is a minority opinion based on comparatively thin ground -- word usage as opposed to actual religious teaching and practice -- and I must reject it.

I respect you, but I cannot accept this particular argument.

You can say what it is about. But you can't single-handedly redefine words, particularly scholarly words like atheist, monotheist, polytheist. Language would become meaningless if you could just declare everything means only what you declare it to mean. You can define your religion as you wish, but that is not a defense for the improper use of language to describe your religion.
Who said anything at all about redefining words?

Earlier, I yelled at Szanth for throwing the dictionary definition of "deity" at people over and over, but in fact, that definition is perfectly useful and I have been going by it all along.

By the plain vanilla dictionary definitions of words such as "god" and "deity," there is nothing at all that would stop a person from doing with their own religion exactly what you said they cannot -- declaring that, within their religion, anything can be god, nothing can be god, there are/are not many gods/one god/no god, and so forth -- without ever having to redefine anything.

Christians are monotheist because they say they are and because they act like it. I am a polytheistic animist because I say I am and I act like one. How does any of that imply redefining scholarly terms?

This is a fairly silly example. We're not talking about what a religion can and cannot do. We're talking about whether or not the language is appropriate. You've quite seriously strayed from the point.
It is an example precisely on point. If you cannot see it, I would suggest you have missed the point, rather than me straying from it.

Or do you mean to imply that, if I do with my religion one of the things you said I can't, then what I would be calling a "god" is not actually a "god" according to my religion?

Remember, you made that list of no-can-do's in reference to understanding/defining what words mean in talking about religion. You seem to be trying to limit not only how the word is defined, but also how it is applied. How is that different from saying that someone else's religion is false if it does not fall within your limitations?

You've mixed like 50 points here, most of which have nothing to do with the language.
I beg to differ. My point may have been complex, but I made only one.

There is a core meaning even if some aspects change. You can claiim that the word, god, means sibling and that if you have multiple siblings you're a polytheist, but, frankly, no matter how loudly or frequently you say it, we'd laugh and point. The word, god, has to some degree an agreed upon meaning. The nuances of that meaning are quite important but the core simply isn't going to change.
I see, so according to you then, the Hindus who every so often claim that a person born into a community is the avatar of a god and therefore a god or demi-god themselves, and who make that person an object of worship, are just blowing smoke up their own asses and deserve to be pointed and laughed at? Because those people who get deified are often someone's sibling, and their family members worship them too.

You are starting to sound just a tiny tad like UB (sorry, but I had to say it). Because what I hear you saying is something like this: "Oh, 'god' means 'X' and only 'X' so if anyone says that something that is not 'X' is a god, that's crap and doesn't deserve respect. So even if they are telling me what their religion is about, I can tell them they are wrong."

I would point out, for the record, by the way, that if, in a religion, one's siblings can be believed to be gods, and if one has more than one sibling who one believes to be a god, then yes, one would be a polytheist then.

"Polytheist" =/= "god(s)." "Polytheist" describes the worshipper. "God(s)" describes what is worshipped. Your opinion about whether what someone else worships falls within your expectations of what a god is supposed to be is irrelevant to both words.

If you were speaking to my point, you'd have actually done something here, but since I'm not talking about what people can and cannot do in their religion, but instead the meaning of language, the whole of this post is lost in the amount of time you spend not speaking to anything I was actually talking about.

Amusingly, you talk about the specifics of actions and beliefs and not about language and then pretend that such an example discusses how individuals can redefine the language, particularly scholarly language. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to try again. Would you care to try?
I'll be happy to repeat myself, as soon as you explain how your list of things people cannot say about their own religions is not talking about what people can and cannot do in their religion, or for that matter, how it does not count as talking about the specifics of actions and beliefs and not about language.

Rather than go back through previous posts, I'll make it easy and refer you back to your own remarks about siblings as gods, above. Explain how that is not talking about what people can or cannot do with their own religions. Explain how that is not an attempt to apply your rules to someone else's belief system.

And while you're at it, explain how doing any of the things you have listed as verboten in this thread would in any way "redefine" what the word "god" means.

No, it cannot. What makes you say that?
I say it because it's true. I know the criticism can be applied to all religions because it has been. If you are going to argue history, you should try familiarizing yourself with it. There has never been a period of history during which some people have not called other people's beliefs false, nor a period during which some people have not questioned the validity of religious claims to historicity (even for their own religion), nor a period during which some people who were regular practitioners of a religion have not expressed doubts as to the reality of the god(s) they were worshipping, nor a period in which there were no skeptics or non-believers to make such criticisms. There have been periods when making such criticisms could get a person killed, but actually, surprisingly few such times.

You seem to confuse "being called a god" with "being a god". I am talking about the latter. The nature of things does not depend on what they are called. I wanted to know what the real distinguishing characteristics are that divide demi-gods from gods. If you say that demi-dos are not technically gods, you need to be able to tell me your criteria for this distinction.
btw Heracles is not entirely fictional.
Oh, so you are a believer then. Had me fooled.

We are talking about reality here. That what humanity's quest for knowledge is all about. We want to know what things exist and how. Religion is a part of this attempt to find out. What religions say about gods and their interaction with humans (and everything else) must be judged by the actual existence of the gods that are referred to here. Now while we cannot be sure about gods that have been worshiped since times before the invention of writing and thus the reliable transportation of information, we can be sure about gods (and other figures out of the divine sphere, such as angels and demons) that have been made up entirely in comparatively late ages (such as the biblical god or the Angel Moroni or the dictator Xenu) and that have no occurrence in times prior to the existence of those texts that mention/describe them. We don't know whether Enki, Enlil, Atum, Ptah, etc are real, but we are able to know that Yhvh, Moroni, and Xenu are not.
No, we are not talking about reality. We -- or rather, you -- are talking about your personal obsession. And you are making no sense, but I guess you must be used to that by now.

Originally Posted by Free Soviets
sure. but that doesn't change the fact that an utter lack of evidence for a thing, despite the best efforts of countless people of many many years is actually very very good evidence that the thing doesn't exist. which is precisely the case with all the various gods besides a couple philosophical constructs that nobody believes in which cannot even in principle be observed. and those happen to have some rather interesting problems themselves.


but again, this means we have to be agnostic about really distant tiny orbiting teapots. this is nonsensical. assuming that there really aren't any out there, we are perfectly justified in making the epistemic claim to know that there aren't.

"Best efforts," are you kidding? What are these best efforts, pray tell?

In assuming things, we are perfectly justified in knowing things?
Of course! Rene Descartes: "I assume, therefore I know."

Wait...um...

Of course! Rene Descartes: "I assume, therefore I know."

Wait...um...

T-Shirt at the U-Haul place today:

"I don't think much, therefore I may not be."

sure. but that doesn't change the fact that an utter lack of evidence for a thing, despite the best efforts of countless people of many many years is actually very very good evidence that the thing doesn't exist. which is precisely the case with all the various gods besides a couple philosophical constructs that nobody believes in which cannot even in principle be observed. and those happen to have some rather interesting problems themselves.



but again, this means we have to be agnostic about really distant tiny orbiting teapots. this is nonsensical. assuming that there really aren't any out there, we are perfectly justified in making the epistemic claim to know that there aren't.
Sorry to say this, but yes, FS, if you are going to stick to a true rationalist approach then you must remain agnostic about tiny orbiting teapots and unicorns. You must remain agnostic about anything the existence or non-existence of which you cannot definitively prove.

In practical application, we may feel safe going forward on our assumptions, but to declare those assumptions to be fact is, to be blunt, nothing more than a lie. If you cannot present definitive proof or evidence one way or another, then no claim of definitive fact will have any validity whatsoever.

In the absence of evidence or proof, the rational default stance should be "I do not know." It is only the truth. In fact, we do not know one way or the other. If we did know, then we'd have the proof in hand. It would be the basis of our knowledge.

So, a truthful and reasonable stance might be to say, "I do not know if there is or is not a god, but I choose to believe that there is not based on application of my personal beliefs/opinions to the evidence I have at hand." Of course, this would require you to admit that you are talking about your own subjective beliefs/opinions, not established fact, and would leave plenty of room for other reasonable people to disagree with you.

T-Shirt at the U-Haul place today:

"I don't think much, therefore I may not be."

Hahaha!! I want one. I want that on a coffee mug. :D

Hahaha!! I want one. I want that on a coffee mug. :D

I've got a bunch of shirts to look up now, come the next paycheck (or more likely the one after that) ... like Colbert's "Alpha Squad Seven" shirt. :)

Dude, it's a logical fallacy. There would be evidence for the stories involving gods, but not necessarily for the gods themselves. Claiming otherwise is a logical fallacy.

It's not sort of a logical fallacy. It's not that it might be a logical fallacy. It's a logical fallacy by definition. You can say that it's reasonable to behave as if it's true. But to assert it as true and claim that your assertion is backed by a lack of evidence for something we can have no evidence for is a logical fallacy. Your lack of acceptance really doesn't do anything for your agument. It just shows you don't actually understand the rules of logic. At least not well enough to even avoid the most clear fallacies.

"can have no evidence for"? how could such a thing be at all relevant to this universe?

the appeal to ignorance is an informal fallacy, rather than a formal logical fallacy. in other words, the fallaciousness depends on the content of the argument rather than the form. it is perfectly good reasoning to take a real absence of positive evidence for a thing's existence as very good evidence of that thing's absence. we can't, of course, say that the lack of evidence for a proposition p proves not p (except in a non-rigorous, common language sense of prove), but as any good article on the appeal to ignorance will tell you, the fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence actually isn't good enough evidence of absence. there is a real and important difference between "i have no data on this subject" and "we've looked and there doesn't seem to be anything there to find".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism#Christian_view
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Ch1.htm
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38222/monotheism
http://www.google.com/search?q=christianity+and+monotheism&hl=en&start=20&sa=N

Well, what do you know. Lots of sources call Christianity monotheistic, even with the Trinitarian Monotheistic deity. ;)

now that's fallacious

"can have no evidence for"? how could such a thing be at all relevant to this universe?

the appeal to ignorance is an informal fallacy, rather than a formal logical fallacy. in other words, the fallaciousness depends on the content of the argument rather than the form. it is perfectly good reasoning to take a real absence of positive evidence for a thing's existence as very good evidence of that thing's absence. we can't, of course, say that the lack of evidence for a proposition p proves not p (except in a non-rigorous, common language sense of prove), but as any good article on the appeal to ignorance will tell you, the fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence actually isn't good enough evidence of absence. there is a real and important difference between "i have no data on this subject" and "we've looked and there doesn't seem to be anything there to find".

Seriously, Dude, I don't know what to tell you if you don't understand this. It's possible for it to be good reasoning which is what I quoted it. However, it's only good reasoning if evidence would be expected.

Meanwhile, you practically use the example from most descriptions of the fallacy when you say you mention that you don't see the relevance of something there is no evidence for.

If a god exists that created the laws of the universe it would certainly have relevance. Meanwhile, we'd have no means of examining that god since we are bound by those same laws. Even if those laws changed it would be evidence for some intelligence messing with them. That's why ID isn't scientific. It is positively impossible to examine the existence of God or any other supernatural intelligence. By definition of being supernatural we could not hope to accurately predict what we would have to see in order for it be evidence.

God could cause all life to cease to exist in a snap and it would be evidence of his existence. He could poof new life out of thin air and it would certainly cause us to examine our understanding of the universe, but still wouldn't prove the existence of a god.

I'll tell you what, son, why don't you name this positive evidence that would HAVE to exist in order for their to be a god? You must have mountains since otherwise your claims would be idiotic.

Meanwhile, you practically use the example from most descriptions of the fallacy when you say you mention that you don't see the relevance of something there is no evidence for.

what are you talking about?

If a god exists that created the laws of the universe it would certainly have relevance. Meanwhile, we'd have no means of examining that god since we are bound by those same laws.

demonstrate this. it seems to me that there is at least the possibility of evidence regardless, to say nothing of the old first cause argument or some better descendant of it.

It is positively impossible to examine the existence of God or any other supernatural intelligence.

no, it isn't. the only supernatural beyond the realm of examination is supernatural unlike any anyone has ever claimed exists, which has had no interaction with the universe at all, ever, and in fact, cannot have any such interaction. and even assuming that such a thing 'exists', it doesn't exist in a sense that could ever be meaningful in this universe

I'll tell you what, son, why don't you name this positive evidence that would HAVE to exist in order for their to be a god? You must have mountains since otherwise your claims would be idiotic.

give me a particular god, i'll give you the evidence that ought to be there but isn't. this is all simple burden of proof stuff here.

Jocabia, my friend, you seem to be the one dancing around things.

First: A commonly held view that other gods are gods? I have never heard or read anything of the sort. I challenge your basis for that remark. Are you basing it on Bible references? Then why do you continue to ignore my point that people use words in inaccurate ways? I would think this entire thread would be proof enough of that assertion of mine. If people use the word "god" in inaccurate or inconsistent ways, then the mere usage of the word is not enough to prove anything about what people believe, one way or another.

Amusing. That's what I said. If you believe that, I'm not sure why you're arguing. I was talking about the need for a more precise usage in this case. You were the one talking about it being completely self-defining. You said, their game their rules. Now you're basically saying the opposite.

It does in the Abrahamic religions because, as Ashmoria has been correctly pointing out, each religion gets to make up its own rules for itself. In the Abrahamic religions, no one can be a god except God. Period. Doesn't matter what you say. Their game, their rules.

So first they get to make up the rules and now you're saying they use inaccurate usages. The person you were arguing with was talking about a more precise and scholarly examination, while you were claiming that it's more accurate to allow the religions themselves to make their own claims.

Now, if that's not what you were trying to say, then you should have noticed in my first post that this was what I was protesting to.




Just because the various English translations of the Bible may use the word "god" to describe something that other people believed in -- such as the gods of Egypt -- does not in any way prove that (a) ancient Christians believed those gods were gods, or (b) that modern Christians believe that they are gods, or (c) frankly, even that the writers of the English versions of the Bible believed that they were gods. It is far more likely, in my opinion, that other people's gods are referred to as gods solely because "god" is the English word that best describes what those other people thought the things they worshipped were. It implies nothing at all about whether Christians or Jews thought they were real or delusions or what.

We aren't talking about ancient Jews. We're talking about today. The commonly used translation IS gods. The context shows that they were talking about gods in the same way theos in theology and polytheistic does. Christianity recognize that these other gods ideologically qualify as gods. To say otherwise is inaccurate.


Second: I make no claims about what the Bible supports or does not support. In understanding the nature of a religion, I go by what the practitioners of that religion say about it, and I look for the greatest agreement among acknowledged authorities within the religion and then look at how that jibes with the general practice of the religion. On this basis, I challenge you to show me any generally accepted documentation - any catechism, prayerbook, passage of the Bible, documented sermon, writings of Christian philosophers, theologians, etc. - that states that within Christian belief there is more than one god.

I NEVER claimed they believed in more than one god. I pointed out quite clearly that they acknowledge that other beliefs reference gods, even if they don't believe those gods exist. You made the claim that only one with the traits of God could be considered a god. This is factually incorrect. The other gods qualify as gods, and thus can be examined to consider the definition of god in terms of Christian usage. Which again is what we're talking about. We're not discussing existence or even faith in existence but the usage of words.



You must remember that we are not talking about the usage of a word here. We are talking about what Christianity is. That is the topic of the thread.
Bullshit. The usage of words is the point. Because it's the usage that defines whether or not a religion is monotheistic, atheistic or polytheistic. Since your argument was that they claim that no one can be a god except God directly contradicts the relevant beliefs about general claims that other religions violate the commandments by hodling other gods, even if they don't exist, in esteem.

This usage evidences that they agree that one need not have the traits of God in order to qualify as a god, even in the view of Christians themselves. This is significant to whether or not the devil, in literal translation, qualifies as a god even under their own usage. "Nuh-uh" doesn't really an argument make when examining this.



So, when references are made to the gods of other religions, do we actually know that the writers of those references actually believed those gods to exist? Or are we merely assuming that to be the case?

Existence doesn't matter. I'm not saying they believed they existed. I'm saying that they acknowledged that things with the traits those religions claim their gods have qualify as gods. This allows us to examine how they define gods and thus if something has the same traits, like the devil, would qualify as a god. Either we can examine their usage to determine what they believe the meaning of the word is or we have to just pretend usage has nothing to do with meaning. The latter, of course, would be ludicrous.


If we know for a fact that Christians believe there to be more than one god, then Christianity may indeed be polytheistic, if we define "polytheistic" as believing in more than one god, despite worshipping only one.

Polytheistic simply means that the religion has multiple gods. Most polytheistic religions commonly have practictioners focused on one god. This why particular oracles focused on certain Roman gods, and various similar qualities in polytheistic religions.




However, if we do not know that Christians believe more than one god exists, then, to be blunt, we are talking out our ass. Because the fact of the matter is, Christians say they only believe in one god, and no matter how they use or misuse words in various translations of texts or even in their common speech, you cannot know better than them what is in their minds.

Obviously, Christians don't self-identify as polytheists. However, again, polytheist is a scholarly designation. IF they use the word god to describe beings with certain traits, even if they claim those beings don't exist, then look to a being they claim does exist and has those traits, but suddenly claim it's not a god, for whatever reason, this is logically inconsistent. They don't even agree with their own usage of the word.



If Christians tell me that they are monotheists, I will take them at their word. If the majority of competent Christian authorities over time agree that Christianity believes in only on god, I will take them at their word, especially if the majority of practicing Christians back them up with their words and their behavior. If you come along and tell me that, despite all that, Christianity recognizes that other "gods" are indeed gods, I am sorry, I must compare that to what others say and conclude that yours is a minority opinion based on comparatively thin ground -- word usage as opposed to actual religious teaching and practice -- and I must reject it.

How useful. Hey, why discuss anything? I claim I'm the President of the United States. Of course, it's true, right? You'd never claim I either was lying or didn't know what the PotUS is. You wouldn't protest at all. I mean, I can claim that anything means anything.

Makes debate impossible, and allows you escape your little logical problem, but, hey, let's do that. Please let the mods know so we can delete this forum, since we've found the solution to meaningful discussion. That solution being accepting claims no matter how flawed they are.

I got bored with the rest of this, because you basically are constantly trying to escape the point.

Theology is actually a science. There is plenty of room for debate about whether or not Christianity is polytheistic. You walk into any scholarly forum discussing this and you say, if they say they're X then they are, and you'll be laughed out of the room.

what are you talking about?

I recognize that you're not familiar with the fallacy enough to properly apply it, but at least read enough about it to not use the same examples.

demonstrate this. it seems to me that there is at least the possibility of evidence regardless, to say nothing of the old first cause argument or some better descendant of it.

Oh, yay, another attempt to change the point. If you can't show me the exact evidence we would have to see and that we didn't see it, in essence, providing evidence of lack, then you fail. And you can't. The game of 'prove it to me or I'm right" isn't going to fly.




no, it isn't. the only supernatural beyond the realm of examination is supernatural unlike any anyone has ever claimed exists, which has had no interaction with the universe at all, ever, and in fact, cannot have any such interaction. and even assuming that such a thing 'exists', it doesn't exist in a sense that could ever be meaningful in this universe

Really? I claim God created the universe with a given set of laws and let it continue in motion uninterfered with, because as an omnitient, it would unfold exactly as planned. It's a common belief and it would leave no evidence. Your ignorance of this belief hardly makes for a good argument.

Meanwhile, a supernatural cause for the universe could very much interact with the universe and not leave evidence of its existence. This is because not knowing how something happened does not lead to the conclusion that God did it. As such, just about anything could happen and it would still be natural as far as we know.



give me a particular god, i'll give you the evidence that ought to be there but isn't. this is all simple burden of proof stuff here.

Ok, use the God I just claimed. God created the universe with it unfolding exactly as planned. No need for micromanagement for an omnitient god.

So let's play. Tell me what evidence would prove God's existence.

So let's play. Tell me what evidence would prove God's existence.

Kari Byron, of course. :p
http://www.joe-mammy.com/pages/features/kari-byron/baloons-lrg.jpg

More seriously ...:
http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/classic/classictales/RealStory.html

*admittedly not entirely on topic, but worth a look*

personally i don't give a rat what christianity, or any other organized belief is or isn't. because i believe in trying to avoid lying to myself.

i also believe in a VERY BIG universe, and no reason there couldn't be something bigger then all of us put togather (besides just the universe itself). i just seriously and sincerely hope, all the fanatics, as they seem overwhelmingly likely to be, are wrong, in their claiming that whatever is, would or does, actually want us to lie to ourseves. it or they, as the case may be.

=^^=
.../\...

No, we are not talking about reality. We -- or rather, you -- are talking about your personal obsession. And you are making no sense, but I guess you must be used to that by now.The sense is: Yhvh is a late Jewish fabrication. That's it. That's no obsession, that's a fact. Of course dumbies like Jews, Christians and Muslims cannot accept that for obvious reasons, but it is nevertheless so. That also renders whatever Jesus and Muhammad did pointless, and it makes whatever Jews say about beliefs in ancient times (you know, Solomon, Moses, Joseph, Abraham, Noah...) a lie. That's reality.

Kay how bout this I'll die and find out what's up after death and come back and let you guys know, kay? Ready, go.

Kay how bout this I'll die and find out what's up after death and come back and let you guys know, kay? Ready, go.


GL HF!


Otherwise: Argumentum ad nauseam.

The sense is: Yhvh is a late Jewish fabrication. That's it. That's no obsession, that's a fact. Of course dumbies like Jews, Christians and Muslims cannot accept that for obvious reasons, but it is nevertheless so. That also renders whatever Jesus and Muhammad did pointless, and it makes whatever Jews say about beliefs in ancient times (you know, Solomon, Moses, Joseph, Abraham, Noah...) a lie. That's reality.

I love that you spelled dummies wrong.

Meanwhile, I challenge to prove that it's a fabrication. Of course, this requires that you prove that it has no relevance to any actual deity. Similarities to other mythologies and that it didn't exist as a mythology only proves that you don't actually know what a fabrication is.

I'll wait. This should be entertaining.

GL HF!


Otherwise: Argumentum ad nauseam.

I totally died, and the other side is like playing Dark Side of the Moon backwards while watching Leprechaun 2: Back to Tha Hood. It's... unsettling.

I totally died, and the other side is like playing Dark Side of the Moon backwards while watching Leprechaun 2: Back to Tha Hood. It's... unsettling.

*makes note to live forever*

*makes note to live forever*

I hear death mocks people as he comes for them by acting like a Leprechaun - still 12 ft tall, still cloaked in black, with a skeletal body, but crouching down, doing a terrible Irish accent, prodding his victims to lick his shillelah and shiver his timbers... he... he thinks leprechauns are pirates... *cries*

Amusing. That's what I said. If you believe that, I'm not sure why you're arguing. I was talking about the need for a more precise usage in this case. You were the one talking about it being completely self-defining. You said, their game their rules. Now you're basically saying the opposite.
No, I'm not. My point has been consistent. The term "self-defining" is yours. I never said it or anything like it.

What I have said consistently, over and over, and will repeat for the last time here, is that the standard English dictionary definition of "god" is broad enough to allow for various, even contradictory, understandings of what concepts appropriately fit into that word without redifining the word at all. You seem not to like that -- perhaps you cannot show that I am wrong -- so you keep trying to say that my point is something different. Only it isn't.

As for "their game, their rules," I have also stated, more than once, that because of the broadness of the definition of the word "god," religions can make up for themselves their own rules about what a god is or is not according to their own belief systems, again without redefining the word.

If your only objection to this is that it means that "god" is too vague a term for your taste, take it up with the OED or whoever. I didn't invent the language. If you want "more precise" use of terms, well, J-man, that's what explanation is for. So suck it up and make with some footnotes, like all the academics do.

So first they get to make up the rules and now you're saying they use inaccurate usages. The person you were arguing with was talking about a more precise and scholarly examination, while you were claiming that it's more accurate to allow the religions themselves to make their own claims.

Now, if that's not what you were trying to say, then you should have noticed in my first post that this was what I was protesting to.
Yes, that' s right. I say it's more correct to let the religions define themselves. And I have made it clear (see above) that the language allows for that and allows "scholarly examination" to work around that (laboriously, but so what?). And your point is?


We aren't talking about ancient Jews. We're talking about today. The commonly used translation IS gods. The context shows that they were talking about gods in the same way theos in theology and polytheistic does. Christianity recognize that these other gods ideologically qualify as gods. To say otherwise is inaccurate.
All you are doing here is repeating yourself. I already addressed these remarks. If you do not like my answer, simply repeating the question is not going to get you a different answer.

I NEVER claimed they believed in more than one god. I pointed out quite clearly that they acknowledge that other beliefs reference gods, even if they don't believe those gods exist. You made the claim that only one with the traits of God could be considered a god. This is factually incorrect. The other gods qualify as gods, and thus can be examined to consider the definition of god in terms of Christian usage. Which again is what we're talking about. We're not discussing existence or even faith in existence but the usage of words.
Wrong. That is what YOU are discussing. It is not the topic of the thread. I am trying to refer to the topic.

Bullshit. The usage of words is the point. Because it's the usage that defines whether or not a religion is monotheistic, atheistic or polytheistic.
This is bullshit, my friend. Do you really expect me to agree that word usage counts for more than the beliefs and actions of believers in determining the nature of a religion? I remind you of two old adages: "Actions speak louder than words," and "talk is cheap." Get real, Jocabia.

Since your argument was that they claim that no one can be a god except God directly contradicts the relevant beliefs about general claims that other religions violate the commandments by hodling other gods, even if they don't exist, in esteem.

This usage evidences that they agree that one need not have the traits of God in order to qualify as a god, even in the view of Christians themselves. This is significant to whether or not the devil, in literal translation, qualifies as a god even under their own usage. "Nuh-uh" doesn't really an argument make when examining this.
Jocabia, you are so caught up in trying to prove me wrong that you miss how you contradict yourself with your own remarks:

If Christians believe that the gods of other religions do not exist, then the Christians are not acknowledging that those other gods are indeed gods. Rather, they are classifying them as lies or delusions even though they are called by the word "god." And the sin involved is merely in preferring a delusion to God, NOT in worshipping other gods, since clearly that would be impossible, if they don't exist. The non-believers would be worshipping a delusion, not a god - regardless of what they call it.


Existence doesn't matter. I'm not saying they believed they existed. I'm saying that they acknowledged that things with the traits those religions claim their gods have qualify as gods. This allows us to examine how they define gods and thus if something has the same traits, like the devil, would qualify as a god. Either we can examine their usage to determine what they believe the meaning of the word is or we have to just pretend usage has nothing to do with meaning. The latter, of course, would be ludicrous.
First of all, I remind you, in case you forgot, that the Bible is not a scholarly paper on comparative religion. So it is not concerned with using words in such a way as to allow for an examination of other religion's definitions of their gods. You will not learn jack-shit about the gods of the Egyptians by the way they are described in the Bible.

And there is no "pretend usage" in play here, your insulting and condescending remarks notwithstanding. I am using standard English dictionary definitions and standard English usages. Learn to cope.

Polytheistic simply means that the religion has multiple gods. Most polytheistic religions commonly have practictioners focused on one god. This why particular oracles focused on certain Roman gods, and various similar qualities in polytheistic religions.
Thank you so much for defining "polytheist" to a polytheist.

Now address the question I raised long ago in this thread (I'll repeat/rephrase it, since you apparently never read it):

Are we using "polytheist" to describe a religion, or a worshipper? Was Ahknaten a polytheist because he was part of a polytheist social construct, or a monotheist because he allowed that only one god out of the pantheon truly mattered and was worthy of worship? I remind you that actual religious scholars, Egyptologists, and historians disagree on this specific question. So apparently, even a $2 word like "polytheist" is not as cut and dried as you would like. What hope then for throw-away little cheapies like "god"?

Obviously, Christians don't self-identify as polytheists.
Argument over. Thank you.

Or is it your position that you get to tell them what they believe, regardless of what they think they believe? UB, is that you in there?

However, again, polytheist is a scholarly designation.
No, it isn't. It's a standard word, not jargon with any specialized usage or meaning specific to a type of profession, activity, or context. There is nothing "scholarly" about it.

IF they use the word god to describe beings with certain traits, even if they claim those beings don't exist, then look to a being they claim does exist and has those traits, but suddenly claim it's not a god, for whatever reason, this is logically inconsistent. They don't even agree with their own usage of the word.
Which was already addressed by my point about the inconsistencies in the ways people use words. And your point is?

How useful. Hey, why discuss anything? I claim I'm the President of the United States. Of course, it's true, right? You'd never claim I either was lying or didn't know what the PotUS is. You wouldn't protest at all. I mean, I can claim that anything means anything.

Makes debate impossible, and allows you escape your little logical problem, but, hey, let's do that. Please let the mods know so we can delete this forum, since we've found the solution to meaningful discussion. That solution being accepting claims no matter how flawed they are.
What the hell are you ranting about now?

I got bored with the rest of this, because you basically are constantly trying to escape the point.
That's right, run away, you coward! hehehe.

Jocabia, I am not "escaping the point." I am demonstrating the fatal flaws in your point, to wit, that it is full of holes a truck could pass through.

Theology is actually a science. There is plenty of room for debate about whether or not Christianity is polytheistic. You walk into any scholarly forum discussing this and you say, if they say they're X then they are, and you'll be laughed out of the room.
"Theology is actually a science"???!!! WTF??

I call bullshit.

I remind you that you will have a hard time arguing against Free Soviets' and UB's assertions about factuality/lack of factuality if you are going to insist that theology is a science. Is it the science of something for which you yourself say there can never be any evidence? Then explain how the scientific method is applied to it.

The sense is: Yhvh is a late Jewish fabrication. That's it. That's no obsession, that's a fact. Of course dumbies like Jews, Christians and Muslims cannot accept that for obvious reasons, but it is nevertheless so. That also renders whatever Jesus and Muhammad did pointless, and it makes whatever Jews say about beliefs in ancient times (you know, Solomon, Moses, Joseph, Abraham, Noah...) a lie. That's reality.
This childish insult renders you not worth talking to.

I will only say that all you are doing here is expressing a preference for an older fairy tale over a newer one. Who cares? It's not an argument.

I ignore you now.

Jocabia, the only thing that could make our argument more enjoyable would be if we were actually fencing while doing it. Grab your rapier and get your ass over here.

the devil is supposedly a higher (huhuh) being, and has special powers than man doesn't. and he isn't god's servant. so he's a god...it's just that nobody is supposed to worship him.

doesn't that mean christianity is still monotheistic?

don't argue with an atheist! :cool:

***actually, i just reread the long posted argument above, and now i'm wondering why it matters whether it's mono- or polytheistic

the devil is supposedly a higher (huhuh) being, and has special powers than man doesn't. and he isn't god's servant.

Arguably he is Gods servant. Tempting people simply is his job.

Jocabia, the only thing that could make our argument more enjoyable would be if we were actually fencing while doing it. Grab your rapier and get your ass over here.

I can referee, but I'm telling you now, he'd probably just choke you out.

the devil is supposedly a higher (huhuh) being, and has special powers than man doesn't. and he isn't god's servant. so he's a god...it's just that nobody is supposed to worship him.

doesn't that mean christianity is still monotheistic?

don't argue with an atheist! :cool:

That sort of reasoning would make it henotheistic. It would acknolwedge the existence of other gods, but require the worship of one, single god of those to the exclusion of all others.

That sort of reasoning would make it henotheistic. It would acknolwedge the existence of other gods, but require the worship of one, single god of those to the exclusion of all others.

Which actually is quite a reasonable description of Christianity - a religion that is literally brimming with subtle references to other deities. Take the animals at the stable...

Which actually is quite a reasonable description of Christianity - a religion that is literally brimming with subtle references to other deities. Take the animals at the stable...

I'm really quite surprised no one else has brought it up in 44 pages, to be perfectly honest.

No, I'm not. My point has been consistent. The term "self-defining" is yours. I never said it or anything like it.

What I have said consistently, over and over, and will repeat for the last time here, is that the standard English dictionary definition of "god" is broad enough to allow for various, even contradictory, understandings of what concepts appropriately fit into that word without redifining the word at all. You seem not to like that -- perhaps you cannot show that I am wrong -- so you keep trying to say that my point is something different. Only it isn't.

As for "their game, their rules," I have also stated, more than once, that because of the broadness of the definition of the word "god," religions can make up for themselves their own rules about what a god is or is not according to their own belief systems, again without redefining the word.

If your only objection to this is that it means that "god" is too vague a term for your taste, take it up with the OED or whoever. I didn't invent the language. If you want "more precise" use of terms, well, J-man, that's what explanation is for. So suck it up and make with some footnotes, like all the academics do.


Yes, that' s right. I say it's more correct to let the religions define themselves. And I have made it clear (see above) that the language allows for that and allows "scholarly examination" to work around that (laboriously, but so what?). And your point is?



All you are doing here is repeating yourself. I already addressed these remarks. If you do not like my answer, simply repeating the question is not going to get you a different answer.


Wrong. That is what YOU are discussing. It is not the topic of the thread. I am trying to refer to the topic.


This is bullshit, my friend. Do you really expect me to agree that word usage counts for more than the beliefs and actions of believers in determining the nature of a religion? I remind you of two old adages: "Actions speak louder than words," and "talk is cheap." Get real, Jocabia.


Jocabia, you are so caught up in trying to prove me wrong that you miss how you contradict yourself with your own remarks:

If Christians believe that the gods of other religions do not exist, then the Christians are not acknowledging that those other gods are indeed gods. Rather, they are classifying them as lies or delusions even though they are called by the word "god." And the sin involved is merely in preferring a delusion to God, NOT in worshipping other gods, since clearly that would be impossible, if they don't exist. The non-believers would be worshipping a delusion, not a god - regardless of what they call it.



First of all, I remind you, in case you forgot, that the Bible is not a scholarly paper on comparative religion. So it is not concerned with using words in such a way as to allow for an examination of other religion's definitions of their gods. You will not learn jack-shit about the gods of the Egyptians by the way they are described in the Bible.

And there is no "pretend usage" in play here, your insulting and condescending remarks notwithstanding. I am using standard English dictionary definitions and standard English usages. Learn to cope.


Thank you so much for defining "polytheist" to a polytheist.

Now address the question I raised long ago in this thread (I'll repeat/rephrase it, since you apparently never read it):

Are we using "polytheist" to describe a religion, or a worshipper? Was Ahknaten a polytheist because he was part of a polytheist social construct, or a monotheist because he allowed that only one god out of the pantheon truly mattered and was worthy of worship? I remind you that actual religious scholars, Egyptologists, and historians disagree on this specific question. So apparently, even a $2 word like "polytheist" is not as cut and dried as you would like. What hope then for throw-away little cheapies like "god"?


Argument over. Thank you.

Or is it your position that you get to tell them what they believe, regardless of what they think they believe? UB, is that you in there?


No, it isn't. It's a standard word, not jargon with any specialized usage or meaning specific to a type of profession, activity, or context. There is nothing "scholarly" about it.


Which was already addressed by my point about the inconsistencies in the ways people use words. And your point is?


What the hell are you ranting about now?


That's right, run away, you coward! hehehe.

Jocabia, I am not "escaping the point." I am demonstrating the fatal flaws in your point, to wit, that it is full of holes a truck could pass through.


"Theology is actually a science"???!!! WTF??

I call bullshit.

I remind you that you will have a hard time arguing against Free Soviets' and UB's assertions about factuality/lack of factuality if you are going to insist that theology is a science. Is it the science of something for which you yourself say there can never be any evidence? Then explain how the scientific method is applied to it.

Theology is most certainly a science. It's the study of religion and it's as much a science as archeology is. Perhaps we should start there. Because if you don't accept that, the rest of this is kind of moot.

Here's the point, yes, there are tons of people who call themselves theologians that are really just patriarchs or matriarchs in their own religion, but I'm talking about the focused scientific analysis of various religions throughout the history of mankind. The study of what people believe, have believed and how that has affected us. That's my usage.

EDIT: I'm willing to use the term, religious studies, instead since people seem to prefer that term for the usage I'm describing. I am talking about the scholarly analysis of religion, not those who are simply believers with a lot of knowledge of their faith.

That sort of reasoning would make it henotheistic. It would acknolwedge the existence of other gods, but require the worship of one, single god of those to the exclusion of all others.

thanks. i didn't know that word, but sounds good enough for christianity.

I'm really quite surprised no one else has brought it up in 44 pages, to be perfectly honest.

It has, though not as clearly. The whole "angels are gods as well" debate from earlier pages boils down to "but you are not supposed to worship them, therefor they are not gods according to Christians".

Oh well. Now to determine if Christians agree.

It has, though not as clearly. The whole "angels are gods as well" debate from earlier pages boils down to "but you are not supposed to worship them, therefor they are not gods according to Christians".

Oh well. Now to determine if Christians agree.

Odds are, no. Of course, this comes back to the definition of god/deity and what qualifies. A topic I'd really rather not get back to, largely because I can't be assed to tell Christians whether what they identify as special entities are gods or not.

Odds are, no. Of course, this comes back to the definition of god/deity and what qualifies. A topic I'd really rather not get back to, largely because I can't be assed to tell Christians whether what they identify as special entities are gods or not.

what kind of special entities?

although I am probably not the type of Christian you are looking for.....

what kind of special entities?

although I am probably not the type of Christian you are looking for.....

Angels, demons, the devil, saints (if one is Catholic), Christ himself (if one is a unitarian), and the "other gods" mentioned, which can be construed as other, false gods, or other gods who it is sinful to worship.

I'm sorry, I should've been clearer. Special entities is sort of an awkward phrase for "anything supernatural."

Angels, demons, the devil, saints (if one is Catholic), Christ himself (if one is a unitarian), and the "other gods" mentioned, which can be construed as other, false gods, or other gods who it is sinful to worship.

I'm sorry, I should've been clearer. Special entities is sort of an awkward phrase for "anything supernatural."

Angels, demons, the devil, etc. are all under God, they are not gods, nor are they on level with Him. They are not necessarily higher than humans. You have God and you have everyone else, and there is nothing like God, and there is nothing even nearly like God.

As far as false gods, there is a huge thing in my particular brand of Christianity where you are to put God first, and your relationship with Him is to be the most important thing in your life, if you are trying to put other things above God it's considered a false god.

We consider Jesus to be God so, I guess He doesn't count.

Angels, demons, the devil, etc. are all under God, they are not gods, nor are they on level with Him. They are not necessarily higher than humans. You have God and you have everyone else, and there is nothing like God, and there is nothing even nearly like God.

Then why all the symbolism in the Bible referencing the Egyptian Gods (which together with the Greco-Romanic pantheon were somewhat more important than Judaism in the region Jesus lived) ?

Angels, demons, the devil, etc. are all under God, they are not gods, nor are they on level with Him. They are not necessarily higher than humans. You have God and you have everyone else, and there is nothing like God, and there is nothing even nearly like God.

As far as false gods, there is a huge thing in my particular brand of Christianity where you are to put God first, and your relationship with Him is to be the most important thing in your life, if you are trying to put other things above God it's considered a false god.

We consider Jesus to be God so, I guess He doesn't count.

My point was that a supernatural being can be construed as a god, leading to a henotheistic viewpoint. I'm not arguing for or against it, as it's not really my position to say.

Then why all the symbolism in the Bible referencing the Egyptian Gods (which together with the Greco-Romanic pantheon were somewhat more important than Judaism in the region Jesus lived) ?

examples please.

Jocabia, the only thing that could make our argument more enjoyable would be if we were actually fencing while doing it. Grab your rapier and get your ass over here.

:D

You rock. This is totally sigworthy.

1 = singular, 3 = multiple.

Sorry guys, Christianity is polytheistic unless you can't count.

1 = singular, 3 = multiple.

Sorry guys, Christianity is polytheistic unless you can't count.

C'mon, it's FAITH, *not* LOGIC.
:D

Sorry, I stepped away from this party for a few days. I'll try to catch up.


My "vocab" is just fine, because I used "disingenuous" as in definition #3 (the presumed naivete being that you did not realize the points were unrelated). It was an accusation, one tempered by allowing that you may have created the impression by accident. Though in fact, your supposed mea culpa above, leads me to believe it wasn't an accident, after all.

Btw, it's "big gal" to you. Actually, in reality, I'm quite small. Why don't you just address me as "Milady" from now on, to be safe? ;)


[Dr. Evil Voice]Right.[/Dr. Evil Voice]

Naivete is not a flaw of form but of content, milady.

He says he's a jealous god though. I think he probably doesn't want anything getting worshiped above him, god or no.

That's pretty much what I was saying. God knows that there are no Gods but Him, but He also knows that those scurvy Israelites might well worship false gods and graven images, thus, the first two commandments. BAM!

That's pretty much what I was saying. God knows that there are no Gods but Him, but He also knows that those scurvy Israelites might well worship false gods and graven images, thus, the first two commandments. BAM!

Yeah, he's a sore loser and all.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19a.html
+
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19b.html
+
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19c.html
=
http://images.ibsys.com/2005/0515/4490722_200X150.jpg
:p

Then why would anybody believe in the concept of god that the bible offers? If its accuracy cannot be trusted why does anyone trust its accuracy when it comes to "God"?

There are no sources to confrim anything that the bible claims about the existence, character, and nature of the biblical god. That's the point I was referring to. The fact alone that Yhvh used to have a wife renders the biblical theological approch invalid.
BTW there is also definitely no source for any flood covering Israel.

A lot of people don't. Many Christians are not what you would call God-fearing, as in, they don't believe that God is the kind of guy who smites with fire and brimstone. Have you ever heard the expression 'God is all things to all people'?

People have always had different ideas about God, and the inconsistencies in the Bible are mirrored by the inconsistencies in modern Christian beliefs. Now, since not every Christian reads the Bible word for word, the most plausible explanation for this is that people bring their own preconceived notions of God with them when they become part of a religion.

What text refers to Yaweh's wife? I feel like I've heard of that concept before, probably in the Hebrew apocrypha, but it's a fuzzy memory. And unless she was co-eternal with God, it renders nothing about the "whole biblical theological approch [sic] invalid."

And yes, last time I checked, there was mounting geological evidence that there was a massive flood in the Holy Land. Obviously it didn't cover the entire Middle East, let alone the world, but the legends, once passed down and exaggerated by oral tradition over many generations until the writing of that particular portion of Genesis, do apparently have some basis in fact.

Sorry to say this, but yes, FS, if you are going to stick to a true rationalist approach then you must remain agnostic about tiny orbiting teapots and unicorns. You must remain agnostic about anything the existence or non-existence of which you cannot definitively prove.

In practical application, we may feel safe going forward on our assumptions, but to declare those assumptions to be fact is, to be blunt, nothing more than a lie. If you cannot present definitive proof or evidence one way or another, then no claim of definitive fact will have any validity whatsoever.

In the absence of evidence or proof, the rational default stance should be "I do not know." It is only the truth. In fact, we do not know one way or the other. If we did know, then we'd have the proof in hand. It would be the basis of our knowledge.

So, a truthful and reasonable stance might be to say, "I do not know if there is or is not a god, but I choose to believe that there is not based on application of my personal beliefs/opinions to the evidence I have at hand." Of course, this would require you to admit that you are talking about your own subjective beliefs/opinions, not established fact, and would leave plenty of room for other reasonable people to disagree with you.

Wow. Again, that was very nice. Like what I was trying to say, only you said it more intelligently. FS seems to be forgetting the role of his own personal beliefs as they clash with a strictly rational approach, and has forgotten even more that the leap of faith does not make one a raving lunatic, but is in fact a choice similar to the one he has been making.

See? I wouldn't have even be able to make that point if it wasn't for you. Thank you.

I still think you pulled 'disingenuous' out of your ass though. Or at least were confused as to its definition. And yes, it seems pointless to argue vocab with someone who's clearly neither a dullard nor in disagreement with me, but then again, I wouldn't be me if I didn't.

Kari Byron, of course. :p
http://www.joe-mammy.com/pages/features/kari-byron/baloons-lrg.jpg

More seriously ...:
http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/classic/classictales/RealStory.html

*admittedly not entirely on topic, but worth a look*

That was a cracking good read. To be honest, I kinda imagine God to be quite how he's portrayed in the story. I'd be incredibly okay with that kind of God. As a matter of fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that the scrote-bags whose pride issues are so huge that they couldn't relate to that kind of image of God, are the kind that get names like Pat Robertson and Mohammad Atta.

So basically secretaries...

Saints are there for the benefit of humanity, not of God. Yes, God is all-loving and all-knowing, and if He is going to fulfill your prayers, He is going to no matter how you pray, or even if you pray at all. However, some Christians are a bit timid about asking for help from a force so beyond their comprehension, so they feel more comfortable praying to a Saint.

Let me put it another way: a boss who is not only able, but willing, to answer every phone call he ever gets has no need of secretaries.

I find it sad that when it comes to areas of faith, that otherwise rational people seem to forget how reason works.

People who claim that God exists because he can't be proven false are guilty of an argument from ignorance fallacy. People who claim that God doesn't exist because he can't be proven to exist are guilty of the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true. He adds, A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence. - Irving Copi

As pointed out here, in cases where evidence would NECESSARILY exist, one can make the argument that not finding that evidence is evidence for the opposite. However, in cases where that is not true, there is not logical way to conclude ANYTHING other than our inability to reach a conclusion.

The problem, I think, comes when people try to argue that God's existence would necessarily leave evidence, but whether God would leave evidence is itself not provable, leaving to an infinite loop of the argument. Thus, the leap of faith is no more irrational the the assumption of God's non-existence. Both are choices, albeit powerful ones, in any event. Agnostics are the only ones who can be said to have kept things strictly logical, assuming that they adhere to true agnosticism.

I recognize that you're not familiar with the fallacy enough to properly apply it, but at least read enough about it to not use the same examples.

i didn't. you should read my arguments closer.

there is no fallacy in the claim that a lack of evidence for a thing despite serious attempts to find some (or because a thing is defined out of the possibility of being subject to any line of evidence, empirical or logical) gives us epistemic justification for disbelieving in that thing. and if it is actually true that the thing doesn't exist, then we are right to say that we know it doesn't on the basis of the lack of evidence. think fairies, unicorns, honest intelligent republican leaders, etc.

note that this is different from attempting to argue that the lack of evidence for p proves the nonexistence of p. reality is of course unhindered by our ignorance. but our knowledge of reality is determined by our justifications for our beliefs and by the independent truth of those beliefs.

Oh, yay, another attempt to change the point. If you can't show me the exact evidence we would have to see and that we didn't see it, in essence, providing evidence of lack, then you fail. And you can't. The game of 'prove it to me or I'm right" isn't going to fly.

good thing that isn't what i did then, eh? you made an unsupported assertion that we'd have no means of examining a creator because we'd be bound by the laws they created. this is not trivially obvious, so i'd like to see the argument for it.

Really? I claim God created the universe with a given set of laws and let it continue in motion uninterfered with, because as an omnitient, it would unfold exactly as planned. It's a common belief and it would leave no evidence.

i specifically said no interaction with the universe at all, ever. creation is interaction

Meanwhile, a supernatural cause for the universe could very much interact with the universe and not leave evidence of its existence.

i know of no interactions which leaves absolutely no evidence of any sort at all. you propose that there is some different sort that we have never encountered, and seems to run counter to the very idea of interaction (which is defined by the effects it evidences). i'd say you'll have to clarify for me what sort of thing this 'interaction' is that rules out both empirical and non-empirical evidence of its existence.

Ok, use the God I just claimed. God created the universe with it unfolding exactly as planned. No need for micromanagement for an omnitient god.

So let's play. Tell me what evidence would prove God's existence.

well, proof is a difficult thing. we'd need some sort of sound argument demonstrating necessity and sufficiency, i suppose. i haven't been talking proof at all though - would it be okay if i stuck to what i actually have been talking about?

alright, an omniscient god setting things up and having the whole thing run exactly as planned with no further interference...

first off, there ought to be a good "first cause" type argument that can be made. this may be possible, but induction based on all the years of previous attempts doesn't leave me with much grounds for justified hope. in fact, i feel rather solidly justified in claiming that i know it can't be done.

secondly, in order for omniscience we'd need to not have a universe that's future from moment to moment is probabilistic due to quantum effects. especially at the early stages of said universe - hard to know everything about how the universe will go when it is quite literally indeterminate. frankly i find the concept of omniscience to be a bit silly. the only ways i've ever seen to make it even halfway work amount to watering it down so much that the concept is unrecognizable and could, in theory be replicated by a very powerful computer.

third, i would expect there to be empirical traces of creation that are fundamentally different from the forces at work in the universe. essentially, something like string theory-based pre-big bang cosmology must be impossible.

etc.

Sorry to say this, but yes, FS, if you are going to stick to a true rationalist approach then you must remain agnostic about tiny orbiting teapots and unicorns. You must remain agnostic about anything the existence or non-existence of which you cannot definitively prove.

so knowledge = proven true beliefs? seems to be a rather high standard - what with the ruling out knowing that the external world exists and all...

In assuming things, we are perfectly justified in knowing things?

we are justified in claiming to know things when we have good justification for believing them. but we know things that we justly believe on the basis of the external factual matter of whether they are true or not.

so for the orbiting teapots, we are justified in claiming to know that there aren't any, but we might be wrong about this still. being ultimately wrong won't make our current belief less justified, it just makes our claim of knowledge on the basis of that justification incorrect.

we are justified in claiming to know things when we have good justification for believing them. but we know things that we justly believe on the basis of the external factual matter of whether they are true or not.

so for the orbiting teapots, we are justified in claiming to know that there aren't any, but we might be wrong about this still. being ultimately wrong won't make our current belief less justified, it just makes our claim of knowledge on the basis of that justification incorrect.

isnt that the essense of science? that we ask the questions that might reveal an answer and build a world view based on what we find out?

so we know something about tea pots, something about the state of our space programs, who has done what, and we can be pretty sure that there is no teapot orbiting jupiter.

we ask ourselves what might have to be true for there to be a god. this is a much tougher task since there are myriad definitions of god. as soon as we rule one out, someone says "yeah but THIS definition might hold" and we have to work on that definition. people keep moving the goal post, changing the definition so that they can still justifiy a belief.

so while we cant say for sure that there is NO possible god out there--especially if we define him in the loosest possible way, we can still say that there are many gods that really dont exist.

first off, there ought to be a good "first cause" type argument that can be made. this may be possible, but induction based on all the years of previous attempts doesn't leave me with much grounds for justified hope. in fact, i feel rather solidly justified in claiming that i know it can't be done.

Yay. You avoided the whole thing. Seriously, you can't think this passes for even a passing resemblence to reason.


secondly, in order for omniscience we'd need to not have a universe that's future from moment to moment is probabilistic due to quantum effects. especially at the early stages of said universe - hard to know everything about how the universe will go when it is quite literally indeterminate. frankly i find the concept of omniscience to be a bit silly. the only ways i've ever seen to make it even halfway work amount to watering it down so much that the concept is unrecognizable and could, in theory be replicated by a very powerful computer.

Ah, and there is the fallacy. I don't know how it's possible so it's not. Omniscience may not be possible within the bounds of our rather limited universe and its laws, but pretending ANYONE can speaking educatedly about what is and is not possible outside of our universe and its laws is, well, breaching the boundaries of sanity. You may say what you believe, but pretending you KNOW anything about what is and isn't possible outside of our limited scope of understanding is laughable.


third, i would expect there to be empirical traces of creation that are fundamentally different from the forces at work in the universe. essentially, something like string theory-based pre-big bang cosmology must be impossible.

etc.

You expect? Again, what part of this isn't based on completely unfounded assumptions. You're using the definitive example of argument from ignorance.

You and IDers should hang out. This is pretty much their argument. That because they expect an intelligent agent would have to make certain things happen that it would. Of course, like your argument, science rejects theirs because it's a fact that evidence for or against undefined and impossible to define supernatural agents is never going to come.

In no logical or scientific realm would you not be laughed out of the room.

isnt that the essense of science? that we ask the questions that might reveal an answer and build a world view based on what we find out?

so we know something about tea pots, something about the state of our space programs, who has done what, and we can be pretty sure that there is no teapot orbiting jupiter.

we ask ourselves what might have to be true for there to be a god. this is a much tougher task since there are myriad definitions of god. as soon as we rule one out, someone says "yeah but THIS definition might hold" and we have to work on that definition. people keep moving the goal post, changing the definition so that they can still justifiy a belief.

so while we cant say for sure that there is NO possible god out there--especially if we define him in the loosest possible way, we can still say that there are many gods that really dont exist.

Nope. We can say that those gods don't or didn't take certain actions. We can say they don't live in certain claimed places. However, we cannot say that "really don't exist" without extending our knowledge to areas where we have none.

That's pretty much what I was saying. God knows that there are no Gods but Him, but He also knows that those scurvy Israelites might well worship false gods and graven images, thus, the first two commandments. BAM!No. Jews only say that there are no gods but their god, but in fact their god is only the fictitious equivalent to a graven image, thus, the first two commandments. BAM!

You must remain agnostic about anything the existence or non-existence of which you cannot definitively prove.But who says that the existence or non-existence of gods cannot be definitely proven? On what grounds can anybody claim thus?

If a god were to show up as the Greeks, Mesopotamians, and Jews of ancient times claim to have witnessed (or even as many others since then have claimed to have witnessed), what more proof would be needed then?

You and IDers should hang out. This is pretty much their argument. That because they expect an intelligent agent would have to make certain things happen that it would. Of course, like your argument, science rejects theirs because it's a fact that evidence for or against undefined and impossible to define supernatural agents is never going to come.

it's only 'undefined' because you refuse to recognize when you have defined it. what you mean is that there are an infinite number of possible ways to specify gods, and you refuse to be tied to any of them as they are systematically ruled out. but there are an infinite number of explanations possible for fucking everything. there are an infinite number of hypotheses that all explain the current data we have on gravity precisely as well as our current theory. we don't therefore conclude that we have no knowledge about gravity.

in the god department, the ultimate retreat will have to be a 'god' whose 'interaction' with the universe looks exactly like no god at all. all other possible gods leave evidence of their existence. but such a thing doesn't exist in any real sense anyway - a thing that's existence and non-existence are identical doesn't exist at all in either case. there is no there there. so either there is evidence out there somewhere for the existence of gods or there are no gods.


and, of course, the IDers arguments would be good, if they were true. but they aren't. if it really was the case that certain things were irreducibly complex and really could not be formed through some evolutionary process, that would be damn good evidence against evolution, and would actually count as evidence in favor of ID. fuck man, darwin wrote that down in "the origin". the problem with IDers is that they don't surrender when their arguments don't pan out, but instead, like you, pick up the motherfucking goal posts and run elsewhere.

it's only 'undefined' because you refuse to recognize when you have defined it. what you mean is that there are an infinite number of possible ways to specify gods, and you refuse to be tied to any of them as they are systematically ruled out. but there are an infinite number of explanations possible for fucking everything. there are an infinite number of hypotheses that all explain the current data we have on gravity precisely as well as our current theory. we don't therefore conclude that we have no knowledge about gravity.

There is evidence for gravity. We can observe and test gravity. Anyone who claims we can actually test for things that exist unbounded by our universe is a lunatic or lying.


in the god department, the ultimate retreat will have to be a 'god' whose 'interaction' with the universe looks exactly like no god at all. all other possible gods leave evidence of their existence. but such a thing doesn't exist in any real sense anyway - a thing that's existence and non-existence are identical doesn't exist at all in either case. there is no there there. so either there is evidence out there somewhere for the existence of gods or there are no gods.

And there is the flaw. A thing that's existence or non-existence TO US looks the same cannot be claimed to not exist at all. We can speculate and such speculation could very well be rational, but the moment you claim to KNOW you're in the realm of ID. That's why science openly admits that the supernatural is completely and utterly outside of it's realm. If you tried to publish a scientific paper claiming to have proved there is no god or gods, you'd lose all credibility and you'd be relagated to publishing in the same journals willing to publish ID claims.

Every part of your assertions is unfounded. You base one fallacious claim on another. It's a house of cards.



and, of course, the IDers arguments would be good, if they were true. but they aren't. if it really was the case that certain things were irreducibly complex and really could not be formed through some evolutionary process, that would be damn good evidence against evolution, and would actually count as evidence in favor of ID. fuck man, darwin wrote that down in "the origin". the problem with IDers is that they don't surrender when their arguments don't pan out, but instead, like you, pick up the motherfucking goal posts and run elsewhere.

Neither are your arguments. No matter how tightly you shut your eyes, you can't claim there's no light. We can see your eyelids and the position they're in. You're an IDer, claiming that you can make assertions about the supernatural and necessarily be right.

This is a classic logical fallacy. Seriously, this is just sad.

But who says that the existence or non-existence of gods cannot be definitely proven? On what grounds can anybody claim thus?

Because it requires absolute knowledge. Unless we know the properties of a thing, we cannot, at all, claim to know how it function and thus what would qualify as evidence. We're humans. We don't have access to absolute knowledge. We might be right sometimes, but even if we are, we can't know it.

As such, claiming to know anything outside of the bounds of what we're capable of observing as a human being is ludicrous. One day we may be able to observe how everything, but how could we possibly hope to know this. And absent that, how could we possibly hope to make claims about that which we cannot observe and truly have no ability to examine?

Agnostics have the only claim to a rational view of the supernatural. Anything beyond that understanding requires a level of cockiness, about the abilities of either yourself or humans in general, that is generally reserved for really annoying atheletes, actors and politicians.

No. Jews only say that there are no gods but their god, but in fact their god is only the fictitious equivalent to a graven image, thus, the first two commandments. BAM!

Dude, I love you're level of faith. Seriously, it's very impressive. Why let reason affect your faith. Ignore all reason and keep on preaching, brother.

isnt that the essense of science? that we ask the questions that might reveal an answer and build a world view based on what we find out?

so we know something about tea pots, something about the state of our space programs, who has done what, and we can be pretty sure that there is no teapot orbiting jupiter.

precisely. good justification for believing something to be true falls far short of absolute proof. and if we happen to be right about the thing we are justified in believing to be true, then we know that thing. there may, of course, really be a tiny orbiting teapot out there, put there by the ancient astronauts that built the pyramids. but lacking evidence for anything of the sort, right now the only justifiable position is to say that we know there isn't.

also note that this is the same usage of 'know' found in sentences like "i know the sun will rise tomorrow" and "i know that if i touch the hot stove i will burn myself" and "i know there is a world outside my own skull". any attempt to say we do not know that there ain't a teapot in orbit out there must also declare that we don't actually know much of anything.

we ask ourselves what might have to be true for there to be a god. this is a much tougher task since there are myriad definitions of god. as soon as we rule one out, someone says "yeah but THIS definition might hold" and we have to work on that definition. people keep moving the goal post, changing the definition so that they can still justifiy a belief.

so while we cant say for sure that there is NO possible god out there--especially if we define him in the loosest possible way, we can still say that there are many gods that really dont exist.

yep. and it literally does require a constant shifting of goal posts. in fact, you have to switch gods entirely to get around the fact that everything people claim to know about one is false - though this is often (poorly) disguised by calling the god in question by the same name, despite being a clearly different character. for example, jocabia would have us believe that the biblical yhwh is the same as the deists' philosophical construct. which is silly.

precisely. good justification for believing something to be true falls far short of absolute proof. and if we happen to be right about the thing we are justified in believing to be true, then we know that thing. there may, of course, really be a tiny orbiting teapot out there, put there by the ancient astronauts that built the pyramids. but lacking evidence for anything of the sort, right now the only justifiable position is to say that we know there isn't.

also note that this is the same usage of 'know' found in sentences like "i know the sun will rise tomorrow" and "i know that if i touch the hot stove i will burn myself" and "i know there is a world outside my own skull". any attempt to say we do not know that there ain't a teapot in orbit out there must also declare that we don't actually know much of anything.



yep. and it literally does require a constant shifting of goal posts. in fact, you have to switch gods entirely to get around the fact that everything people claim to know about one is false - though this is often (poorly) disguised by calling the god in question by the same name, despite being a clearly different character. for example, jocabia would have us believe that the biblical yhwh is the same as the deists' philosophical construct. which is silly.

Who is talking about believing something. We are talking about KNOWING. I believe in God. I believe He exists. I don't KNOW.

Meanwhile, prove that God, the God spoken of in the Bible, must have interacting in a known way? Certainly you can prove a literal Bible wrong, which proves... a literal translation of the Bible wrong. Pretending that proves non-existence is like saying that if you prove that my claim that I once had sex with eighteen women in a night is false that it would snap me into non-existence.

You don't understand the rules of logic. The very basis of argument from ignorance is that you claim that something must work a certain way because you can't see it working differently and extrapolate from there.

We know that in a century the teachings of Jesus were being bastardized within a century of when he was supposed of taught. We don't think this. The teachings of Paul are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. Yet, you would make the claim that somehow the old testament survived millennia without being written down, yet, if we can somehow claim that we know what those teaching were originally.

Seriously, and they say Christians make a leap of faith. The things you claim to KNOW can't be known. I believe what I believe on faith. So do you. Only one of us has the presence of mind to accept it.

FS: God doesn't exist. I can prove it.
Me: How?
FS: Because if a god existed he would have done this or left this residue.
Me: Um... based on what?
FS: Because that's what would happen. Give me an example.
Me: Okay, let's say God created the universe.
FS: It would leave a residue.
Me: It would? How the hell would you know? How many universes have you examined that were created by Gods? How many universes that weren't? How many supernatural beings with the ability to create a universe? Seriously, how could you possibly know anything about the supernatural.
FS: Cuz God doesn't exist.

And round and round we go.

Tell me how you could through evidence assert anything about the effect of ANY action by a supernatural intelligent actor? Particularly since you claim it doesn't exist. "It doesn't exist, but if it did, it would have to have these properties, cuz I said so."

FS: God doesn't exist. I can prove it.

ah, here we have the problem. i have never said anything of the sort.

ah, here we have the problem. i have never said anything of the sort.

No, but you did say you have evidence for it which is about as nonsensical as it gets.

On what basis can you make ANY relevant assumptions about beings untethered by the laws of our universe?

Who is talking about believing something. We are talking about KNOWING. I believe in God. I believe He exists. I don't KNOW.

maybe we are using words differently. if you believe that god exists, and that belief is justified in the appropriate way, and god actually exists, then you most certainly do know that he does.

Meanwhile, prove that God, the God spoken of in the Bible, must have interacting in a known way? Certainly you can prove a literal Bible wrong, which proves... a literal translation of the Bible wrong. Pretending that proves non-existence is like saying that if you prove that my claim that I once had sex with eighteen women in a night is false that it would snap me into non-existence.

if the only thing providing any reason for us to believe you existed was a story about the time you had sex with eighteen women in a single night, and that story was demonstrably false, that would provide excellent evidence that the you in question (namely, the one that had all the sex) did not exist. what you want us to do is imagine up some other entities every time something turns out false in the one we are working with. and we can do that, but they are not the same entities.

We know that in a century the teachings of Jesus were being bastardized within a century of when he was supposed of taught. We don't think this. The teachings of Paul are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. Yet, you would make the claim that somehow the old testament survived millennia without being written down, yet, if we can somehow claim that we know what those teaching were originally.

well, other than the fact that we can tell where they cribbed some stuff from, i think you've got me confused with someone else. i ain't made any such claims here.

Seriously, and they say Christians make a leap of faith. The things you claim to KNOW can't be known.

and your standard of knowledge leaves us without any at all. like not even that there is a world outside your head or even that 2+2 equals 4 (after all, prove to me that there isn't a demon fucking with math while you attempt to do it). i'll stick with my non-stupid standard of knowledge, kthnx.

maybe we are using words differently. if you believe that god exists, and that belief is justified in the appropriate way, and god actually exists, then you most certainly do know that he does.

That's just stupid. Appropriate? You didn't say a thing that was meaningful in all that text.


if the only thing providing any reason for us to believe you existed was a story about the time you had sex with eighteen women in a single night, and that story was demonstrably false, that would provide excellent evidence that the you in question (namely, the one that had all the sex) did not exist. what you want us to do is imagine up some other entities every time something turns out false in the one we are working with. and we can do that, but they are not the same entities.

You're giving a reason to not believe I exist, not a reason to believe I don't. The latter is an assertion. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. I know you don't understand that, but it's actually a logical fallacy to claim that if no evidence for something exists, then it must be false. You can only make that assertion if you would NECESSARILY have evidence for that something. In this case, you cannot possibly make that assertion.



well, other than the fact that we can tell where they cribbed some stuff from, i think you've got me confused with someone else. i ain't made any such claims here.

You are making claims about how my God and the biblical God are not the same, but you cannot actually make that claim without claiming that the God the Bible references is a being you can necessarily know about.

Meanwhile, you can know that there are some commonality which would only prove that they "cribbed" anything if you assume the information was wrong in the first place. Otherwise, this just corrected the errant parts.


and your standard of knowledge leaves us without any at all. like not even that there is a world outside your head or even that 2+2 equals 4 (after all, prove to me that there isn't a demon fucking with math while you attempt to do it). i'll stick with my non-stupid standard of knowledge, kthnx.

No, my standard of knowledge follows logic. I don't rest on logical fallacies for knowledge. You do and that's fine, but I have higher expectations for rational people. Yes, you're right. Saying you cannot make assumptions about things you have no experience with is equivalent to saying that 2+2=4. Seriously, how can you even keep a straight face while you say this stuff.

Again, you avoided the question. I take even you recognize how stupid your claim is. On what basis can you make any relevant assumption about beings untethered by the laws of the universe.

No. Jews only say that there are no gods but their god, but in fact their god is only the fictitious equivalent to a graven image, thus, the first two commandments. BAM!

From your point of view, yes. From the Jewish point of view, the invisible but no less real alternative to a graven image. An important difference.

<snip>

***actually, i just reread the long posted argument above, and now i'm wondering why it matters whether it's mono- or polytheistic

I don't see why it matters, either. I was hoping this thread would shed light on that, but so far, it hasn't.

I can referee, but I'm telling you now, he'd probably just choke you out.
What makes you think so? He hasn't even gotten close to me so far. ;)

That sort of reasoning would make it henotheistic. It would acknolwedge the existence of other gods, but require the worship of one, single god of those to the exclusion of all others.

Henotheistic. Thank you! That is the word this discussion has been missing.

So then, Jocabia's argument is that Christianity is henotheistic. I still disagree with him, although I will concede that many Christians are henotheistic, even if the theology of their religion is not.

Theology is most certainly a science. It's the study of religion and it's as much a science as archeology is. Perhaps we should start there. Because if you don't accept that, the rest of this is kind of moot.

Here's the point, yes, there are tons of people who call themselves theologians that are really just patriarchs or matriarchs in their own religion, but I'm talking about the focused scientific analysis of various religions throughout the history of mankind. The study of what people believe, have believed and how that has affected us. That's my usage.

EDIT: I'm willing to use the term, religious studies, instead since people seem to prefer that term for the usage I'm describing. I am talking about the scholarly analysis of religion, not those who are simply believers with a lot of knowledge of their faith.
No, let's not start here. Let's end here, because this perfectly illustrates a point I was planning to bring up, referring to older posts of yours. You have saved me the trouble of researching back in the thread in order to show how you invalidate your own argument by your own inconsistencies.

Your primary objection to my argument has been, throughout, that I am using terms vaguely or inconsistently, requiring them to be redefined to suit my argument or circumstances, and letting people redefine their terms to suit themselves, Humpty-Dumpty-like, leading to some kind of chaos, apparently.

Leaving aside the fact that I never did or argued any such thing, but in fact have used clearly defined terms consistently throughout all my arguments, I will simply point out that you are failing to practice what you preach.

You claim that theology is a science and now you spend three paragraphs explaining what YOU mean by "science" in this context -- your usage, in other words. But by this "usage", if theology is a science just because it is the study of something, then I suppose mixology is a science, too. Also, you do not get to just pick a usage, ignore the fact that there is controversy about it -- scientists often claim that archeology is not a science -- AND criticize others for doing what appears to be the same thing. You especially do not get to do it when your preferred usage is even less definitive than mine. You are choosing to define something as a science using a usage of the word "science" that has no requirement for actual science to occur. Essentially, you are using a word that has very specific meanings and choosing to use its broadest, most vague possible meaning. This is inherently misleading, as it cannot help but imply, by association with the word "science," a preciseness and rigor that does not and cannot exist in what you are talking about.

I, on the other hand, took a word of which the most basic definition is already broad and vague, clearly stated which version of that definition I was using at the beginning of my arguments, and stuck with it consistently throughout. I am not the one willy-nilly redefining words to suit myself.

By the way, I could make the same criticisms of your repeated use of the vague-to-the-point-of-uselessness word "scholarly," but I think this will suffice.

As I say, this is the end of our argument. You have shown that you wish to criticize me for doing something that I did not do, but which you have done several times so far. You wish to prolong and dictate the terms of an argument of your own making, which you started by taking a remark of mine, directed to someone else, out of context and attacking it on a weak foundation. Your attempts to shore up that weak foundation have become ever more specious as you've gone on. When challenged directly on that weak foundation -- i.e. that it implies that you think someone outside a religion has more right than its own followers to determine the nature of it -- you have chosen to argue semantics rather than address that point -- and you have argued your semantics badly. You have also engaged in some minor back-pedaling and even some argument-dropping.

The bottom line is this: You attempted to make a point. You failed. All subsequent argument has been beside your own point, and you have failed on those irrelevant side-points, too. I have no interest and never had any interest in pursuing one of your patented Jocabia brand Circular Side-Fights (tm) about which word means what when. It has been a few days since you brought up any new points that have not already been answered by me. I will not participate in this until you do. And if your new point is just more of this word usage nonsense, I will ignore that too. Get on topic or go chase yourself in your beloved circles.

Really, J, I have no idea what possessed you to try this tactic on me. After all the time we've spent in threads together, did you really think I'd dance this little dance of yours?

My point was that a supernatural being can be construed as a god, leading to a henotheistic viewpoint. I'm not arguing for or against it, as it's not really my position to say.
Can be construed =/= is construed.

My point all along has been that a religion may appear polytheist, monotheist, or henotheist to an outsider, based on features that appear within it, but the outsider's opinion does not matter more than the insider's because the outsider does not see the full context in which those features exist, but the insider does.

This is why I do not think it is valid for people outside a religion to argue that a religion is one thing, if its followers say it is something else.

:D

You rock. This is totally sigworthy.

Thanks. :)

Sometimes I wish NSG was a graphical MMORPG, so we could actually have our little avatars duking it out or throwing buns at each other while our arguments scroll above us.

[Dr. Evil Voice]Right.[/Dr. Evil Voice]

Naivete is not a flaw of form but of content, milady.

Are you still here? Sorry, I had forgotten about your existence.

Wow. Again, that was very nice. Like what I was trying to say, only you said it more intelligently. FS seems to be forgetting the role of his own personal beliefs as they clash with a strictly rational approach, and has forgotten even more that the leap of faith does not make one a raving lunatic, but is in fact a choice similar to the one he has been making.

See? I wouldn't have even be able to make that point if it wasn't for you. Thank you.
Thank you, and you're welcome.

I still think you pulled 'disingenuous' out of your ass though. Or at least were confused as to its definition. And yes, it seems pointless to argue vocab with someone who's clearly neither a dullard nor in disagreement with me, but then again, I wouldn't be me if I didn't.
Noted.

so knowledge = proven true beliefs? seems to be a rather high standard - what with the ruling out knowing that the external world exists and all...
High standards are the only ones worth having.

Knowledge is what is known, i.e. fact, i.e. a provable thing. Everything else is assumption, speculation, supposition (etc), or faith.

Note in re your last remark, that is a specific philosophy to which I do not adhere. I do not adhere to it because, imo, it does not matter. Let's say, for the sake of an argument I do not intend to pursue past this point, that the universe is only a construct of a mind that, itself, may not exist. So the fuck what? We may not be able to prove that existence exists, but we can prove that water is wet. Ergo, we know that water is wet, even if we do not know that we exist. How/why? See my second paragraph.

But who says that the existence or non-existence of gods cannot be definitely proven? On what grounds can anybody claim thus?

If a god were to show up as the Greeks, Mesopotamians, and Jews of ancient times claim to have witnessed (or even as many others since then have claimed to have witnessed), what more proof would be needed then?

An argument about proof that is so dependent up on if's and claims is not an argument about proof.

And if you want an answer to your question, read this entire thread. The issue has already been addressed, in depth, several times over.

EDIT: I'm sorry. I forgot that you have not yet retracted and/or apologized for your juvenile insult against Jews, Christians and Muslims, which caused me to declare you not worth talking to. So, don't bother responding to this post. You won't get any more answers from me.

Angels, demons, the devil, etc. are all under God, they are not gods, nor are they on level with Him. They are not necessarily higher than humans. You have God and you have everyone else, and there is nothing like God, and there is nothing even nearly like God.

So again, we come to the conclusion that Satan is but an extension of God, and that God is, when he works through Satan, the avatar of evil.

This is like the fourth person to do this roundabout game where they could've saved us pages and pages of stuff by just simply choosing one of the two options I'd given.

maybe we are using words differently. if you believe that god exists, and that belief is justified in the appropriate way, and god actually exists, then you most certainly do know that he does.
<snip>

"Justified in the appropriate way"? What is that supposed to mean? What "appropriate" means do you intend to apply, aside from the biased assumptions you have already presented as if they were facts here?

And again, you are wrong in a very basic way.

BEFORE the god appears, you do not KNOW anything about him. You only believe things.

AFTER the god appears, you KNOW one thing about him - that he exists. This knowledge is new because you did not have it before. You cannot claim that your pre-knowledge belief was somehow knowledge all along. Anything else you believed about this god before he appeared -- such as what he is the god of, what the extent of his powers are, what kinds of sacrifices or prayers he likes, etc -- remains merely belief until you are specifically informed one way or another by the god himself, i.e. until you get to know him better.

I can believe that there are tiny teapots in space, but even if they actually are there, I do not KNOW it until I actually find proof of them.

So again, we come to the conclusion that Satan is but an extension of God, and that God is, when he works through Satan, the avatar of evil.

This is like the fourth person to do this roundabout game where they could've saved us pages and pages of stuff by just simply choosing one of the two options I'd given.
How does what Smunkeeville said boil down to Satan being an extension of God? She said there was God and there was everybody else, including Satan, and that no one else, including Satan, is like God. Where does the idea of "extension" come in?

High standards are the only ones worth having.

Knowledge is what is known, i.e. fact, i.e. a provable thing. Everything else is assumption, speculation, supposition (etc), or faith.

Note in re your last remark, that is a specific philosophy to which I do not adhere. I do not adhere to it because, imo, it does not matter. Let's say, for the sake of an argument I do not intend to pursue past this point, that the universe is only a construct of a mind that, itself, may not exist. So the fuck what? We may not be able to prove that existence exists, but we can prove that water is wet. Ergo, we know that water is wet, even if we do not know that we exist. How/why? See my second paragraph.

higher standards that make empirical knowledge impossible are most certainly not worth having. we have never required internal certainty for knowledge, and in fact should not because that position really does lead inescapably to a very very radical skepticism from which it is logically impossible to escape.

while you could 'know' that water is wet, provided that you used wet to definitionally mean "covered in a substance such as water", you could not know that this stuff right here is water. it's all down to the fundamental difference between relations of ideas and matters of fact. you can prove (and therefore know, according to your standard of justification), at most, only things which have no empirical content, but which are definitionally true. all statements which contain empirical content cannot be proven at all, as there is (and can be) no logical certainty to them by their very nature.

quite literally, your proposed standard of justification leads directly to the conclusion that i do not know that i have hands. and thus your standard of justification for knowledge is absurd.

higher standards that make empirical knowledge impossible are most certainly not worth having. we have never required internal certainty for knowledge, and in fact should not because that position really does lead inescapably to a very very radical skepticism from which it is logically impossible to escape.

while you could 'know' that water is wet, provided that you used wet to definitionally mean "covered in a substance such as water", you could not know that this stuff right here is water. it's all down to the fundamental difference between relations of ideas and matters of fact. you can prove (and therefore know, according to your standard of justification), at most, only things which have no empirical content, but which are definitionally true. all statements which contain empirical content cannot be proven at all, as there is (and can be) no logical certainty to them by their very nature.

quite literally, your proposed standard of justification leads directly to the conclusion that i do not know that i have hands. and thus your standard of justification for knowledge is absurd.

That really doesn't follow at all. What he's suggesting is that a lack of empirical data leads any conclusion on something to be a belief until empirical data can be found to confirm or disprove those beliefs.

For instance, you KNOW you have hands, because you can empirically show that you have hands. You similarly KNOW water is wet, if you have ever come in contact with water, and therefore experienced wetness.

"Justified in the appropriate way"? What is that supposed to mean?

knowledge is (at least) justified true belief. this is an uncontroversial statement. the belief part is easy, you just have to hold some idea in your head. the true part isn't at all up to you, but is a completely external relation of your belief to reality. so what is left is the justification. we don't have to get into a full epistemological debate over the precise nature of justification to see that there are clearly appropriate and inappropriate standards of justification one could use.

I can believe that there are tiny teapots in space, but even if they actually are there, I do not KNOW it until I actually find proof of them.

no. you cannot find proof of them, even in finding one. all you can have is evidence, never proof. it is always logically possible that you are being tricked somehow, for instance.

so what makes you not currently have knowledge of the existence of orbital teapots, despite the fact that you believe they exist and the fact that they actually do exist, would be that your belief is improperly justified. you would have come to your true belief through some method that is not a valid method of justification.

That really doesn't follow at all. What he's suggesting is that a lack of empirical data leads any conclusion on something to be a belief until empirical data can be found to confirm or disprove those beliefs.

For instance, you KNOW you have hands, because you can empirically show that you have hands. You similarly KNOW water is wet, if you have ever come in contact with water, and therefore experienced wetness.

but i cannot prove that i have hands and i cannot prove that i have ever come into contact with water. i agree with you that i know these things. but what he is suggesting is that knowledge is defined by being proven, and he accepted that this standard leaves us unable to have knowledge that the external world exists. he just thinks that doesn't matter. he is wrong, unless he is willing to accept that knowledge is only possible about things that specifically lack empirical content - 2+2 being 4, all bachelors being unmarried men, things that are covered in water are covered in a substance such as water, etc.

i know i have a hand, therefore we do not need to have proof to have knowledge.

but i cannot prove that i have hands and i cannot prove that i have ever come into contact with water. i agree with you that i know these things. but what he is suggesting is that knowledge is defined by being proven, and he accepted that this standard leaves us unable to have knowledge that the external world exists. he just thinks that doesn't matter. he is wrong, unless he is willing to accept that knowledge is only possible about things that specifically lack empirical content - 2+2 being 4, all bachelors being unmarried men, things that are covered in water are covered in a substance such as water, etc.

i know i have a hand, therefore we do not need to have proof to have knowledge.

Agreed.

according to philosophy, I am god of this world because I am only sure of my own existence, hence I am the only being that exists hence I am god. quantum physics and philosophy mixed- I can only be sure of my own existence and since observation of the universe causes the existence of the universe, and since I observe the universe, then I am the creator of the universe, therefore I am god.

according to philosophy, I am god of this world because I am only sure of my own existence, hence I am the only being that exists hence I am god. quantum physics and philosophy mixed- I can only be sure of my own existence and since observation of the universe causes the existence of the universe, and since I observe the universe, then I am the creator of the universe, therefore I am god.

Actually it's Descartes' attempts at tackling the Ontological Argument, leading to the development of the phrase "I think, therefore I am." Your existence, however, does not in anyway bestow upon you godlike power, or godlike ability. Meaning you're not, in fact, a god.

How does what Smunkeeville said boil down to Satan being an extension of God? She said there was God and there was everybody else, including Satan, and that no one else, including Satan, is like God. Where does the idea of "extension" come in?

You missed (or ignored) the part where she mentioned everything being under God. Under, as in, subordinate of. As in, in charge of. As in, controls.

according to philosophy, I am god of this world because I am only sure of my own existence, hence I am the only being that exists hence I am god. quantum physics and philosophy mixed- I can only be sure of my own existence and since observation of the universe causes the existence of the universe, and since I observe the universe, then I am the creator of the universe, therefore I am god.

I, too, am the god of this world. I am sure of existence, because I cannot deny I exist. Observation of the universe causes the existence of this world of my making; but although I create this world, as I go, I cannot deny that I exist, so something creates me, as I go. There must be existence beyond "the void" that delineates the purview of the observable universe. As I give form to the things in my world, so something beyond this world gives form to "me."

Actually it's Descartes' attempts at tackling the Ontological Argument, leading to the development of the phrase "I think, therefore I am." Your existence, however, does not in anyway bestow upon you godlike power, or godlike ability. Meaning you're not, in fact, a god.

I can crack my toes indefinately, as well as being able to wiggle my ears (one at a time, or in unison!).

I'd say I qualify for self-god status. =D

but i cannot prove that i have hands and i cannot prove that i have ever come into contact with water. i agree with you that i know these things. but what he is suggesting is that knowledge is defined by being proven, and he accepted that this standard leaves us unable to have knowledge that the external world exists. he just thinks that doesn't matter. he is wrong, unless he is willing to accept that knowledge is only possible about things that specifically lack empirical content - 2+2 being 4, all bachelors being unmarried men, things that are covered in water are covered in a substance such as water, etc.

i know i have a hand, therefore we do not need to have proof to have knowledge.

We are talking about emperical proof. Emperical knowledge. You're equivocating and using one fallacy to cover up another.

You have no emperical evidence for non-existence of supernatural beings. None. Comparing your "knowing" to 2+2 and water being wet is an attempt to associate your faith with things we can actually evidence. No one here is that stupid. None of us are falling for it.

And you are a liar. I accepted nothing of the kind. You are trying to obscure the issue, so I ignored your nonsense and focused on talking about emperical analysis. That's why we are talking about how science cannot analyze the existence or non-existence of anything outside of the bounds of observation.

The only thing I have to say about the "God cannot be observed in any way, shape, or form" argument:

Then if it does exists, it might as well not.

No, let's not start here. Let's end here, because this perfectly illustrates a point I was planning to bring up, referring to older posts of yours. You have saved me the trouble of researching back in the thread in order to show how you invalidate your own argument by your own inconsistencies.

Your primary objection to my argument has been, throughout, that I am using terms vaguely or inconsistently, requiring them to be redefined to suit my argument or circumstances, and letting people redefine their terms to suit themselves, Humpty-Dumpty-like, leading to some kind of chaos, apparently.

Leaving aside the fact that I never did or argued any such thing, but in fact have used clearly defined terms consistently throughout all my arguments, I will simply point out that you are failing to practice what you preach.

You claim that theology is a science and now you spend three paragraphs explaining what YOU mean by "science" in this context -- your usage, in other words. But by this "usage", if theology is a science just because it is the study of something, then I suppose mixology is a science, too. Also, you do not get to just pick a usage, ignore the fact that there is controversy about it -- scientists often claim that archeology is not a science -- AND criticize others for doing what appears to be the same thing. You especially do not get to do it when your preferred usage is even less definitive than mine. You are choosing to define something as a science using a usage of the word "science" that has no requirement for actual science to occur. Essentially, you are using a word that has very specific meanings and choosing to use its broadest, most vague possible meaning. This is inherently misleading, as it cannot help but imply, by association with the word "science," a preciseness and rigor that does not and cannot exist in what you are talking about.

I, on the other hand, took a word of which the most basic definition is already broad and vague, clearly stated which version of that definition I was using at the beginning of my arguments, and stuck with it consistently throughout. I am not the one willy-nilly redefining words to suit myself.

By the way, I could make the same criticisms of your repeated use of the vague-to-the-point-of-uselessness word "scholarly," but I think this will suffice.

As I say, this is the end of our argument. You have shown that you wish to criticize me for doing something that I did not do, but which you have done several times so far. You wish to prolong and dictate the terms of an argument of your own making, which you started by taking a remark of mine, directed to someone else, out of context and attacking it on a weak foundation. Your attempts to shore up that weak foundation have become ever more specious as you've gone on. When challenged directly on that weak foundation -- i.e. that it implies that you think someone outside a religion has more right than its own followers to determine the nature of it -- you have chosen to argue semantics rather than address that point -- and you have argued your semantics badly. You have also engaged in some minor back-pedaling and even some argument-dropping.

The bottom line is this: You attempted to make a point. You failed. All subsequent argument has been beside your own point, and you have failed on those irrelevant side-points, too. I have no interest and never had any interest in pursuing one of your patented Jocabia brand Circular Side-Fights (tm) about which word means what when. It has been a few days since you brought up any new points that have not already been answered by me. I will not participate in this until you do. And if your new point is just more of this word usage nonsense, I will ignore that too. Get on topic or go chase yourself in your beloved circles.

Really, J, I have no idea what possessed you to try this tactic on me. After all the time we've spent in threads together, did you really think I'd dance this little dance of yours?

That's the very definition of science. We're talking about the emperical analysis of the religious beliefs, not the faith in those beliefs themselves. I said we could use a better word, but we're still talking about science. As much as archeology is a science. As much as any analysis of the beliefs and cultures of civilizations will ever be a science. I'm not redefining the word science. I'm suggesting that my usage of the word theology may not have been clear, or possibly the wrong word. Meanwhile, theist, atheist, polytheist and monotheist are scholarly designations. You're not going to escape them by your smoke and mirrors.

Accept that. It's a fact. They have specific meanings. Nothing you say could possibly change that they have a meaning that IS NOT defined randomly based on what some individuals believe. They are set by the scholarly pursuit of which they are a part.

How does what Smunkeeville said boil down to Satan being an extension of God? She said there was God and there was everybody else, including Satan, and that no one else, including Satan, is like God. Where does the idea of "extension" come in?

He doesn't understand the difference between an all-powerful God and an all-controlling God. He thinks that because God could do something then he has to. I can squish bugs, that doesn't mean that I do squish every bug I see, nor do I want to squish every bug I see, nor am I required by my nature to squish every bug I see even though I am able to squish bugs. They don't understand that.

They don't understand that an all-powerful God can create and let His creations make choices of their own. Therefore if God created Satan then of course he must be God's little puppet, because God is all-powerful it must mean that he uses all those powers constantly.

No, but you did say you have evidence for it which is about as nonsensical as it gets.

On what basis can you make ANY relevant assumptions about beings untethered by the laws of our universe?

Since FS keeps avoiding that is and always was about emperical evidence, not some silly philosophical we can't know anything construct, I will repeat.

On what basis can you claim to make any relevant assumptions about being untethered by the laws of our universe? Certainly not the same emperical way we can analyzed mathematics or science or logic. There is no information you have about such beings that isn't completely and utterly faith or unsupported speculation.

Accept that. It's a fact. They have specific meanings. Nothing you say could possibly change that they have a meaning that IS NOT defined randomly based on what some individuals believe. They are set by the scholarly pursuit of which they are a part.
You misunderstand the nature of discourse. Words are no more, and no less, than the protocol by which human concepts are relayed. One does not have to agree with a word's objective definition, or even that it has one, in order to use it in whatever context is appropriate for it. Indeed, unless we can accept the use of words in situations other than our own comfortable boxes for them, our protocol scheme becomes unsuitable for interaction with anyone other than ourselves.

We are talking about emperical proof.

no such thing, except in the sorta sloppy and common language use of 'proof'. i'm sure you've uttered the phrase "science doesn't do proof" to a creationist before, when they start demanding that evolution be 'proven' beyond even an utterly unreasonable doubt.

You have no emperical evidence for non-existence of supernatural beings. None.

yes i do - the utter lack of any evidence for them and an argument that things that exist and interact with the world would leave some. seriously man, do you honestly go around being agnostic about fairies?

Comparing your "knowing" to 2+2 and water being wet is an attempt to associate your faith with things we can actually evidence. No one here is that stupid. None of us are falling for it.

when did i do anything of the sort? sometimes i wonder if you actually read what i write when we get in these debates.

The only thing I have to say about the "God cannot be observed in any way, shape, or form" argument:

Then if it does exists, it might as well not.

The argument is fallacious, anyway, as the idea of God is a form of God, and most people who argue about God have an idea about what they're arguing about. We hope.

On what basis can you claim to make any relevant assumptions about being untethered by the laws of our universe?

things that interact with this universe leave evidence of that interaction in this universe - that is what interaction entails by definition.
if a thing's alleged existence is identical to a thing's non-existence, then that thing doesn't exist.
therefore either a thing has evidence of its existence out there somewhere, or that thing does not exist.

I think God-belief stems from an expanded paradigm, one in which a "nothing" necessarily exists. The definition of every thing is delineated by what that thing is not: red is a unique set of wavelengths in the spectral frequency, notably (or definitionally) different from all other wavelengths in the spectrum. The universe as a thing, as the all-thing, is also delineated by what is not included in that group.

no such thing, except in the sorta sloppy and common language use of 'proof'. i'm sure you've uttered the phrase "science doesn't do proof" to a creationist before, when they start demanding that evolution be 'proven' beyond even an utterly unreasonable doubt.

Yes, which is why you called me on it, I changed my wording. So you sticking to it just your dumbass attempt to pretend you have a point.


yes i do - the utter lack of any evidence for them and an argument that things that exist and interact with the world would leave some. seriously man, do you honestly go around being agnostic about fairies?

Again, what information about supernatural creatures do you have that would make it possible to recognize what residue they would leave? What does God residue look like?



when did i do anything of the sort? sometimes i wonder if you actually read what i write when we get in these debates.

Dude, you keep comparing knowing about gods not existing to 2+2 and various other things we have emperical evidence for. By no definition of emperical evidence is there evidence for gods existing or not existing. Comparing it to things that we can actually analyze is putting the cart before the horse.

Now, be specific. What exact evidence would there be? What does the residue of God look like?

things that interact with this universe leave evidence of that interaction in this universe - that is what interaction entails by definition.
if a thing's alleged existence is identical to a thing's non-existence, then that thing doesn't exist.
therefore either a thing has evidence of its existence out there somewhere, or that thing does not exist.

You mean things that are bound by the universe leave evidence and we learn to recognize that evidence by examining those things. It's like idiots claiming order is evidence of intelligence. They and you have no basis for comparison. Perhaps atoms are the feces of god creatures. You could be made up of the evidence and you wouldn't know it, because you have no way to know or even speculate how the universe would look with a god if there aren't any or without a god if there are. You've got no basis for comparison. Hell, you don't even know if what you're looking involved gods or not. Perhaps it all did. Perhaps none of it did. But without wild speculation you have no ability to analyze what it would look like if either of those things were true or either of them weren't true.

You're just making things up.

Again, say specifically. What does God residue look like? The exact same question we ask of IDers.

things that interact with this universe leave evidence of that interaction in this universe - that is what interaction entails by definition.
if a thing's alleged existence is identical to a thing's non-existence, then that thing doesn't exist.
therefore either a thing has evidence of its existence out there somewhere, or that thing does not exist.
What do you mean by "out there"? Is any such evidence necessarily of a nature perceivable to us?

Yes, which is why you called me on it, I changed my wording. So you sticking to it just your dumbass attempt to pretend you have a point.

actually, i'm carrying on a secondary argument with other people. go look.

Dude, you keep comparing knowing about gods not existing to 2+2

where?

What exact evidence would there be? What does the residue of God look like?

at the very least there would be a causal chain that included the causer. again, it's going to depend on the specific properties the hypothetical god under testing is alleged to have.

What do you mean by "out there"? Is any such evidence necessarily of a nature perceivable to us?

in the universe.

and maybe not necessarily. what i mean is that it must exist and is theoretically possible to be observed by something within the universe (though i'm not sure how one would argue that there are things that can be observed, which we cannot observe even in principle). in any case, this is different than jocabia's god that is exactly identical to the universe whether it exists or not.

You missed (or ignored) the part where she mentioned everything being under God. Under, as in, subordinate of. As in, in charge of. As in, controls.

That's quite a leap, from being subordinate to to being controlled by. The Christian God (which is the one we're talking about here) gave His creation free will. Being under Him does not make one controlled by Him, in fact, the very opposite is true.

The only thing I have to say about the "God cannot be observed in any way, shape, or form" argument:

Then if it does exists, it might as well not.

that is the hook upon which my atheism hangs.

if "god" cant be bothered to DO anything (any more); if he cant be bothered to spell out his preferences as to how we deal with him; if we can't show that he has any effect on the world today and if we can see that nothing WE do causes him to do something to us or the world, he is irrelevant.

so either he doesnt exist or may as well not exist.

its all the same to me.

that is the hook upon which my atheism hangs.

if "god" cant be bothered to DO anything (any more); if he cant be bothered to spell out his preferences as to how we deal with him; if we can't show that he has any effect on the world today and if we can see that nothing WE do causes him to do something to us or the world, he is irrelevant.

It' impossible to know if He is doing anything. For example, right now there is a tree in my yard. One could say, "a seed from an existing tree was harvested, nurtured into a seedling, and then planted." Or one could say "God made the first tree bear fruit, then made an arborist pick up the seed, then made him nurture, and finally, made someone plant it." The former is more likely, but I can't disprove the latter is false.

Your argument is similar to the one that if God exists, why He didn't spell his name with mountains or something. My counterargument would be "He did. People just don't know how to speak Godese."

That's the very definition of science. We're talking about the emperical analysis of the religious beliefs, not the faith in those beliefs themselves. I said we could use a better word, but we're still talking about science. As much as archeology is a science. As much as any analysis of the beliefs and cultures of civilizations will ever be a science. I'm not redefining the word science. I'm suggesting that my usage of the word theology may not have been clear, or possibly the wrong word. Meanwhile, theist, atheist, polytheist and monotheist are scholarly designations. You're not going to escape them by your smoke and mirrors.

Accept that. It's a fact. They have specific meanings. Nothing you say could possibly change that they have a meaning that IS NOT defined randomly based on what some individuals believe. They are set by the scholarly pursuit of which they are a part.


if you are going to make theological claims contrary to the accepted beliefs within a religion (ie that christianity is polytheistic) dont you have to BE a theologian? and not just an expert in one theological system but in comparative theology?

just because we all have a passing understanding of theological concepts doesnt mean we have the qualifications to refute the validity of 2000 year old christian precepts.

do you have a doctorate in comparative theology?

What do you mean by "out there"? Is any such evidence necessarily of a nature perceivable to us?

Oh, yay, more inspecifics. Just like ID. Now, clearly, specifically, what evidence that would definitely exist if there were a god doesn't?

Not some vague reference. Say it clear. What thing if it were present would evidence that God exists?

It' impossible to know if He is doing anything. For example, right now there is a tree in my yard. One could say, "a seed from an existing tree was harvested, nurtured into a seedling, and then planted." Or one could say "God made the first tree bear fruit, then made an arborist pick up the seed, then made him nurture, and finally, made someone plant it." The former is more likely, but I can't disprove the latter is false.
...so pixies still sock out of the dryer?

It' impossible to know if He is doing anything. For example, right now there is a tree in my yard. One could say, "a seed from an existing tree was harvested, nurtured into a seedling, and then planted." Or one could say "God made the first tree bear fruit, then made an arborist pick up the seed, then made him nurture, and finally, made someone plant it." The former is more likely, but I can't disprove the latter is false.

Your argument is similar to the one that if God exists, why He didn't spell his name with mountains or something. My counterargument would be "He did. People just don't know how to speak Godese."

and im sure that is meaningful to you.

to me its just another way of saying that you cant tell anything about god.

maybe he planted the first tree then went away. it would make no difference to how the world work, my place in it, or the outcomes of the choices i make in life.

...so pixies still sock out of the dryer?
Sure, why not?
I'm not saying my post was an effective proof for the existence of anything supernatural, but rather the proof against the supernatural I quoted was ineffective.
and im sure that is meaningful to you.

to me its just another way of saying that you cant tell anything about god.

maybe he planted the first tree then went away. it would make no difference to how the world work, my place in it, or the outcomes of the choices i make in life.

If God controls the growing of trees, it would make a very large difference.
Again, I don't want anyone to think that this is evidence for the existence of God. But it unwise to claim any supernatural being does not exist because there is no natural evidence. (This argument is, however, effective in disproving the supposed existence of natural beings).

He doesn't understand the difference between an all-powerful God and an all-controlling God. He thinks that because God could do something then he has to. I can squish bugs, that doesn't mean that I do squish every bug I see, nor do I want to squish every bug I see, nor am I required by my nature to squish every bug I see even though I am able to squish bugs. They don't understand that.

They don't understand that an all-powerful God can create and let His creations make choices of their own. Therefore if God created Satan then of course he must be God's little puppet, because God is all-powerful it must mean that he uses all those powers constantly.

If that's not what you meant, then you were being redundant and the entire post you made was completely off-topic. Saying "God made everything" adds nothing to the conversation in which we are arguing whether or not the things God makes can hold the status of god themselves.

So I ask the (apparently still unanswered) question of this: Is God or Satan the avatar of evil as we see it on Earth?

That's quite a leap, from being subordinate to to being controlled by. The Christian God (which is the one we're talking about here) gave His creation free will. Being under Him does not make one controlled by Him, in fact, the very opposite is true.

Not really. Your boss tells you what to do, does he not? He hired you to do something specific, or to oversee something that he wants done. He might not move your arms for you, but he wants it done regardless.




To simplify it, for those that can't understand: If Satan has free will, then he is the avatar of evil, and is therefore at the status of a deity. If Satan does not have free will, then God holds the status of avatar of evil (among his other aspects) because he acts through Satan.

Pick one. You cannot, based on the definition of deity, argue any other point but those two and still make any sort of sense. Either Satan is a deity or he is not. Free will or no free will. Evil or puppet. Choose.

Sure, why not?
I'm not saying my post was an effective proof for the existence of anything supernatural, but rather the proof against the supernatural I quoted was ineffective.


If God controls the growing of trees, it would make a very large difference.
Again, I don't want anyone to think that this is evidence for the existence of God. But it unwise to claim any supernatural being does not exist because there is no natural evidence. (This argument is, however, effective in disproving the supposed existence of natural beings). Exists or not, a supernatural being that cannot be observed in any way shape or form might as well not exist.













This is the thread that would not end.
yes it goes on and on my friends.
some people started posting not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue posting forever just becuase
This is the thread that would not end.
yes it goes on and on my friends.
some people started posting not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue posting forever just becuase
This is the thread that would not end.

Exists or not, a supernatural being that cannot be observed in any way shape or form might as well not exist.
Not necessarily. If the existence of God means trees exist, then it would make a large difference. It would just be impossible for us to tell, because we would not know of a world without God and therefore, without trees.
I suppose you could say the impossibility of His existence means there's no point in worship, or anything similar, and that argument is not logically inconsistent.

This is the thread that would not end.
yes it goes on and on my friends.
some people started posting not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue posting forever just becuase
This is the thread that would not end.
yes it goes on and on my friends.
some people started posting not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue posting forever just becuase
This is the thread that would not end.
No argument there. We're not even talking about the initial subject anymore, are we? We should probably get back to it.

No argument there. We're not even talking about the initial subject anymore, are we? We should probably get back to it.

Hey, I resent that. I'm actively attempting to bring this back on-topic. :p

Not necessarily. If the existence of God means trees exist, then it would make a large difference. It would just be impossible for us to tell, because we would not know of a world without God and therefore, without trees.
I suppose you could say the impossibility of His existence means there's no point in worship, or anything similar, and that argument is not logically inconsistent.

Close. I mean as far as we can tell/see its existence(or lack there of) might as well not be. it may be the reason trees grow or it might not. does not matter as far as things go. the trees still grow.

Hey, I resent that. I'm actively attempting to bring this back on-topic. :p
Sorry, didn't see you there.

EDIT: I will take the evolution of the topic as proof that the honorable opposition has conceded the argument, and is trying to obscure that by going on a tangent. I advice everyone else to do the same.

If that's not what you meant, then you were being redundant and the entire post you made was completely off-topic. Saying "God made everything" adds nothing to the conversation in which we are arguing whether or not the things God makes can hold the status of god themselves.

So I ask the (apparently still unanswered) question of this: Is God or Satan the avatar of evil as we see it on Earth?
I was under the understanding that there is no such thing as evil. However, if there is evil, I don't think there is need for an "avatar" of evil, beings can be evil without something forcing it. Satan is bad. People are bad. Cats are bad. What's the need for God to have to force someone with free will to do something? can't they just do it?

Hey, I resent that. I'm actively attempting to bring this back on-topic. :p

meh. it went from a discussion on the classification of a religion, to what makes a god, does/can god exist, to where ever the hell we are now...


Topics the evolve are fun.

So I ask the (apparently still unanswered) question of this: Is God or Satan the avatar of evil as we see it on Earth?
The only answer that can be is, "both or either," as the question depends on how we "see it."