NationStates Jolt Archive

I asked a question. I did not make an argument.



What are you talking about? I never said you did.



No. But it certainly would mean that you don't really think that the default "no position" applies to that question.

Similarly, the fact that it is not reasonable to ask our friends whether they are gods in disguise indicates that we have a position on that question, too. But if it is true that the supernatural status of the divine elevates it beyond the realm of proof, it hardly seems that this position should be any more demonstrable than "God does not exist."

After all, we can't really prove it, can we?

Um, no. Again, what I believe and what I would logically claim are not the same thing. We are talking about logical position. I believe in God. I behave as if God exists. I would never make the logical claim that God exists, nor would I try to build an argument on that assumption. To do so, would be logically invalid.

Again, since I don't ask my friends they are cats does that evidence my "default" position on cats not existing or perhaps just my position on humans not being cats. I have evidence my friends are human. As such, I, quite logically, conclude that they are. Absent evidence to the contrary, I will continue to assume they are human and not cats or dogs or elephants or gods or cheeseburgers. Mmmmmmmm.... cheeseburgers.

Amusing. The same cannot be said of a natural creature.

Why not? Aliens are not supernatural.

That's why the actually logical claim is to say that a creature with the traits of Bigfoot does not exist.

You cannot even say that, by your standard.

Based on what experience? What experience do you have with morally perfect beings that would give you the impression they would interfere?

This is not a matter of "experience." It is a statement following from a notion of "morally perfect."

A morally perfect being seeks justice. This is almost definitional.

How do you make such an assertion? Because morally imperfect, non-omnitient beings who might do so, and often do so with disasterous results?

God can do it without "disastrous results"... otherwise He would not be omnipotent.

In you limited capacity, how could you possibly make such an assertion as to claim to know what the "good" action would be?

In your limited capacity, how could you possibly make such an assertion as to claim to know that Bigfoot isn't just very cleverly hiding?

Of course, it is not actually difficult to come up with a conception of moral perfection that would not require God to, say, save the victims of the genocide in Darfur. On the other hand, it would also mean that the conceptions of morality shared by most Christians are very much at odds with that adopted by the deity in which they believe.

Um, no. Again, what I believe and what I would logically claim are not the same thing. We are talking about logical position. I believe in God. I behave as if God exists. I would never make the logical claim that God exists, nor would I try to build an argument on that assumption. To do so, would be logically invalid.

Yeah, so?

I have evidence my friends are human.

More precisely, you have evidence that your friends exhibit certain human traits.

Similarly, I have evidence that the universe exhibits certain traits consistent with a godless universe (for instance, miracles are not happening routinely.)

The real question is whether those traits--in both cases--are or are not consistent with the alternative possibility that your friends are gods, or that the universe is inhabited by a deity or deities.

Yeah, so?



More precisely, you have evidence that your friends exhibit certain human traits.

Similarly, I have evidence that the universe exhibits certain traits consistent with a godless universe (for instance, miracles are not happening routinely.)

The real question is whether those traits--in both cases--are or are not consistent with the alternative possibility that your friends are gods, or that the universe is inhabited by a deity or deities.

Again, this is based on extreme assumptions. If this is a godless universe then the universe exhibits traits consistent with a godless univers. If this is a god-made universe, this universe behaves consistently with a god-made universe.

If miracles happened "routinely" how would you manage to recognize them?

Again, this is based on extreme assumptions.

What assumptions?

If this is a godless universe then the universe exhibits traits consistent with a godless univers. If this is a god-made universe, this universe behaves consistently with a god-made universe.

Obviously. But some traits are consistent with both.

You say that your friends have human traits. But what you really must show to demonstrate that your friends are not gods is that your friends have traits that are not only consistent with humanity, but also ones that are inconsistent with godhood. Just as someone who thinks that there are real grounds for the statement "God does not exist" must point not to traits consistent with a godless universe, but ones inconsistent with a universe with God.

If miracles happened "routinely" how would you manage to recognize them?

By their inconsistency with the laws of nature. But let's not argue about this--you've already granted that this universe has traits consistent with a godless universe, because you've denied that the existence of God can be demonstrated.

Why not? Aliens are not supernatural.

WHat's you point? Are you claiming we have equal evidence about that which is bound by our universe and that which isn't? I'd love to see you support that assertion.


You cannot even say that, by your standard.

I certainly can. Unless we change the Bigfoot claim to that of a supernatural creature, we can make all kinds of logic-based assumptions based on what we know of natural creatures.


This is not a matter of "experience." It is a statement following from a notion of "morally perfect."

A morally perfect being seeks justice. This is almost definitional.

Amusing. This of course assumes that your morals are universal as well as your definition of justice. But let's pretend your statement is correct.

How do you know what justice is not meted out? Because you don't see it? Hmmm... interesting assertion.

Let's see you support your assertion that A) morally perfect requires that you interfere to bring justice and B) that your definition of justice is the definition (and by definition I mean the practical definition, not the meaning of the word) and C) that justice does not reach people.


God can do it without "disastrous results"... otherwise He would not be omnipotent.

Certainly, but on what basis do you assert that God necessarily would? Because that's what your flawed behind would do if you were God's position. By the nature of God, He most likely wouldn't behave like you.



In your limited capacity, how could you possibly make such an assertion as to claim to know that Bigfoot isn't just very cleverly hiding?

I cannot. But I have evidence for it. There is a big difference. I'll tell you what. Let's play this game. I'll list my evidence that a creature with the presumed traits of Bigfoot and you can list your evidence for the presumed traits of God. However, expect to be challenged on anything that you have no basis for comparison for, since that's just moving your invalid assertions back a step.



Of course, it is not actually difficult to come up with a conception of moral perfection that would not require God to, say, save the victims of the genocide in Darfur. On the other hand, it would also mean that the conceptions of morality shared by most Christians are very much at odds with that adopted by the deity in which they believe.

Not difficult, but still an assertion.

Many Christians picture what I feel is a fairly petty God. A fairly short-sighted God. You seem to assert that such a God is a requirement. I find this wildly amusing.

You assume that a perfect life would be our choice. I wouldn't want anyone to step in and remove the suffering from my life. I learned much from it. And if there is an afterlife, I'd happily suffer through a lifetime for the wisdom one gains from such a life.

But, then, I wouldn't pretend to assert these as the motivations of God, since, you know, not being God, the best I can do is making completely invalid assumptions about how God would act if an imperfect being became him.

By the way, I'm enjoying this convo, So, but I'm going to be out of pocket for a while because we're moving into a very stressful cycle at the energy company I'm working for. I'm going to be doing some heavy trouble-shooting for the entire weekend, so I'm not ditching. How about you PM me with a link to your reply and I will try to make sure that I reply when I return. Thanks for the banter.

What assumptions?

That a god-made universe would have regular miracles. This has no support other than your invalid claim.



Obviously. But some traits are consistent with both.

You say that your friends have human traits. But what you really must show to demonstrate that your friends are not gods is that your friends have traits that are not only consistent with humanity, but also ones that are inconsistent with godhood. Just as someone who thinks that there are real grounds for the statement "God does not exist" must point not to traits consistent with a godless universe, but ones inconsistent with a universe with God.

My friends certainly could be gods, but I wouldn't assert they cannot be. I would assert they are human since I have evidence for this.

I don't make assertions I cannot support. I let the less rational people make invalid assertions. It's more fun that way.


By their inconsistency with the laws of nature. But let's not argue about this--you've already granted that this universe has traits consistent with a godless universe, because you've denied that the existence of God can be demonstrated.

Again, you've made an assumption. So you define miracles as inconsistent with the laws of nature, what we routinely see in nature, and then unless things that violate what we routinely see happen routinely then it's a godless universe. Convenient.

Let me ask you this. What would happen that you believe would evidence a God?

WHat's you point? Are you claiming we have equal evidence about that which is bound by our universe and that which isn't?

I'm claiming that the reasons you give for why we can't have evidence against the existence of God apply just as easily to the existence of Bigfoot.

we can make all kinds of logic-based assumptions based on what we know of natural creatures.

Indeed we can. Just as we can make all kinds of logic-based assumptions based on what we know of morally perfect creatures.

Amusing. This of course assumes that your morals are universal

No, it doesn't. It merely assumes that the notions of "justice" and of "moral perfection" are tied together. Which, as I said, is almost definitional.

How do you know what justice is not meted out?

I can name a whole series of conceptions of justice that the world does not conform to.

It is, of course, possible that God's is none of those... perhaps for Him moral perfection is standing by and watching when hundreds of thousands of innocent people die. But then, the version of God that actually exists is very far from that typically advanced by monotheists.

Certainly, but on what basis do you assert that God necessarily would?

Who said anything about "necessarily"? On what basis do you assert that Bigfoot necessarily leaves traces behind?

They are merely reasonable assumptions.

Because that's what your flawed behind would do if you were God's position.

Probably, but no, that is not what my basis is.

My basis is that such actions are what any entity would do if it were possessed of omnipotence and moral perfection.

I'll list my evidence that a creature with the presumed traits of Bigfoot

Go ahead. You should go first because the standard you use for demonstrating the non-existence of Bigfoot is the standard my counter must meet, and without seeing your argument I can't know what the goalposts are here.

You assume that a perfect life would be our choice. I wouldn't want anyone to step in and remove the suffering from my life. I learned much from it.

And God could not have taught you in some other manner? And you accuse me of putting limits on His omnipotence....

We are only morally obligated to prevent unnecessary suffering. But to an omnipotent being, all suffering is unnecessary by definition.

And if there is an afterlife, I'd happily suffer through a lifetime for the wisdom one gains from such a life.

Maybe you would. Would everyone?

And why, if suffering is such a valuable life-lesson, is it so arbitrarily applied? Why do slaves need to learn the lessons of suffering through slavery, when so many others have lived free? Why did Holocaust survivors have to learn the lessons of suffering through experiencing a genocide, when so many others have lived without it? Why do all of us who suffer more than someone, somewhere, need that extra bit of suffering to drive home the point?

But, then, I wouldn't pretend to assert these as the motivations of God, since, you know, not being God, the best I can do is making completely invalid assumptions about how God would act if an imperfect being became him.

If we assume that God actually exists, you're right. There must be something I'm missing--some way to reconcile human suffering with omnibenevolence. since I am human and imperfect, it follows quite logically that I simply cannot understand God's ways.

But starting without unnecessary assumptions, there are two possibilities:

1. God (defined as a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect according to reasonably conventional notions of morality) does not exist.
2. I simply do not understand God's ways.

The relevant question here is: which is more reasonable? I suppose I can grant that it is possible that God's ways are so mysterious that the countless atrocities in the world somehow fit in with this being the best of all possible worlds... but I find it very hard to believe. It may be a possibility, but it is a rather absurd and implausible one.

The alternative, however--that God does not exist--is perfectly reasonable and very much consistent with what we know of the world.

By the way, I'm enjoying this convo, So, but I'm going to be out of pocket for a while because we're moving into a very stressful cycle at the energy company I'm working for.

Take your time. I can wait.

How about you PM me with a link to your reply and I will try to make sure that I reply when I return.

Sure.

Monotheistic. One God, three parts.

That a god-made universe would have regular miracles. This has no support other than your invalid claim.

That's not what I said.

I said that the lack of miracles was consistent with a godless universe, not that it was inconsistent with a god-made universe.

My friends certainly could be gods, but I wouldn't assert they cannot be.

But you wouldn't ask them if they are, would you? It's not within the realm of plausibility the way Paul having apples is.

Look, you don't know what color my keyboard is. It makes sense for you to have a default of "no position" on whether or not my keyboard is, say, black. It would be reasonable for you, if you were curious, to ask me if my keyboard were black, and it would be reasonable for you to believe me if I told you that my keyboard was black.

You also don't know, though, whether or not I in fact have no keyboard, and instead communicate with magical letter-fairies that make what I tell them to appear on the screen. But it would not be reasonable for you to ask, sincerely, whether or not this is the case. It would not be reasonable for you to believe this if I told you it were the case. It makes no sense to have "no position" in that case--even if knowledge is in fact unavailable.

So it is with your friends being gods (unless they are really exceptional.) And so it is with the existence of gods in general.

(This, incidentally, allows for faith. It merely also allows for the positive assertion--though not the knowledge--that God does not exist.)

Again, you've made an assumption. So you define miracles as inconsistent with the laws of nature, what we routinely see in nature,

These are not the same at all. But, like I said, I see no reason to argue about it. You have already granted the relevant point.

then it's a godless universe.

No. Then happenings are consistent with a godless universe. Not necessarily inconsistent with a god-made one.

Let me ask you this. What would happen that you believe would evidence a God?

Jesus coming down and separating the hellbound from the saved?

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.
That is precisely my answer, and thank you for fielding that one, because, to be honest, I'm getting a bit tired of this nonsense from FS.

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.
No shit, Sherlock. If you would remove your head from your behind for a moment, and read the thread from that perspective, you would see that you just rephrased what I've been telling you all along.

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.
And this is the bullshit part of your argument. "Appropriate" is a subjective factor. If you are not prepared to define it, then I am not prepared to accept it on your undefined terms.

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.
Not by you, though.

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.
I find it amusing that a person who claims that assuming something somehow "justifies" saying that we know it, now wants to split hairs between "evidence" and "proof" and spin long yarns of bullshit about whether it is possible to know anything.

I assure you it is possible for all of us to know at least one thing -- i.e. that you are blowing smoke here.

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.
Well, look at it this way: It would be easy enough to prove that you don't have hands. All you'd have to do is cut them off.

BTW, the bolded part of your post, above, can be taken as evidence (not proof) that you either (a) are an idiot, or (b) are knowingly and purposefully bullshitting, or (c) do not know what the word "empirical" means. How the fuck can you lack empirical knowledge that all bachelors are unmarried men, since (a) that's what the word "bachelor" means and (c) it is easy to prove whether a man is married or not? And how can you not know that things covered in water are covered in water, since the substance that we call water is the substance that we call water? Hm?? By the philosophy you seem to think (mistakenly) that you understand, we may argue that we cannot know that the water exists, but there is no way you can successfully argue that underwater things are not under water.

In addition, why should I accept your preposterous premise, when I already explained that in fact, the opposite is true -- that knowledge is ONLY possible about things that DO have empirical content - just like the examples you listed.

BTW #2, how many times do I have to correct people's pronouns in the same thread? I am a she. It was already mentioned -- and if you missed it, you could have asked. If you are going to talk about me, at least do so correctly. Get at least one thing right.

Agreed.
Are you sure that you agree with FS that "knowledge is only possible about things that specifically lack empirical content"? Because that contradicts what you said to FS in your earlier post.

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.
Subordinate to =/= in control of =/= extension of.

If you are a boss, your employees are "under you," but do you really have control over them and are they really extensions of you?

You are the organism. As such, a tumor growing on your liver is subordinate to you, and in a quite literal sense, it is an extension of you, but do you control it? Not if it kills you.

You are attempting to base your argument on a presumption of a relationship that is by no means guaranteed and, therefore, not a safe assumption on which to proceed.

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.
You are repeating your same argument over again with no new points or additions. I have already answered these so-called points. I have nothing to say to this post except: *empirical* fyi.

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.
Yes, it's possible that this point is not being understood, rather than just being ignored.

It is also possible that some people here do not understand how a god can choose to allow evil to exist, and that they do not understand the principle of free will, and that they do not understand the difference between a god and other kinds of supernatural beings, and it may even be possible that some unbelievers are as literal-minded as the most rabid Bible-literalists.

What I do not understand is (a) why they will not simply be told when these things are explained to them and/or (b) why they will not simply take Christians' word for what Christianity is about.

Originally Posted by Jocabia
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.
<snip>
This I will take as likely proof that you do not know what "empirical" means. This answers the issue raised in my earlier post.

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?
Frankly, J, I think you've got a lot of nerve scolding others for using vague language, after the way you've been clinging to that wishy-washy "scholarly" thread.

BTW, the bolded part of your post, above, can be taken as evidence (not proof) that you either (a) are an idiot, or (b) are knowingly and purposefully bullshitting, or (c) do not know what the word "empirical" means.
... or (d) are a philosopher.

(d is much worse)

Well, it'd be my opinion that you shouldn't take mythology so literally, but that's probably just me.

Thank you. :)

The starting point is not 0. It's null. Null and 0 are not the same thing. You've debunked your own argument.

Take apples, for example.

You have a pal, Paul. The default postion for the number of apples Paul has is null. No information. You don't know how many apples Paul has.

As soon as you say Paul has 0 apples, you've made an assertion. Just as much of an assertion as if I said Paul had 10.

No - you do not understand no thing in the context of no evidence.

Why have you invented these 'apples'? By your own definition, we wouldn't even have any evidence that apples exist - we would have to define an apple and, in making that definition we assert some thing. That is the first 'act', before which there is no thing.

The problem is using words like 'apple' or 'god', which is making an assertion beyond 'no thing'.

No thing is not an assertion - it is nothing.

Originally Posted by Smunkeeville
I have suffered enough due to my own bad choices to know it's mostly my fault, and I know God well enough not to blame Him for my stupidity.

I am not trying to convert you. I don't play that. I thought since you seemed interested I would elaborate.
good job!

its nice to see christian beliefs so well explained.

Ditto. Thank you, Smunkee. :)

And that would be so, if FS was making an ontological argument, but he's making an epistemological argument, which says that if something lies beyond what it is possible for us to know --if it is, to us, essentially "nothing" --then there is no reason to believe in it. There is no reason to believe in a nothing that we can't know.

Oddly, it's not too different from the case the agnostic theist uses to justify firm belief in that very same "nothing."

If that is the argument he is trying to make, then he is making it very badly. So badly, I feel an urge to congratulate you on your psychic powers. I would like to see a reference to the epistemological source that tells me "knowledge is only possible about things that specifically lack empirical content." That would be an eye-opener.

Jocabia, do you believe in:
Fairies (the kind with wings, not gay men)
pixies
lochness monster
bigfoot
goblins
hobgoblins
grimlens
trolls
hobbits
banshees
magic folk
sea monsters
the flying spaghetti monster
norse gods
greek gods
roman gods (pre-christian take over)
egyptian gods
ect.


after all, there is no proof that they exist, but nor is there any that they do not.
As I pointed out in an earlier post to FS, a proper response to this might be: "I do not know for a fact whether these things exist or not, but I choose to believe/not believe in them based on <insert argument>."

If that is the argument he is trying to make, then he is making it very badly. So badly, I feel an urge to congratulate you on your psychic powers. I would like to see a reference to the epistemological source that tells me "knowledge is only possible about things that specifically lack empirical content." That would be an eye-opener.

Well, I did find this:

"The propositions of mathematics have, therefore, the same unquestionable certainty which is typical of such propositions as 'All bachelors are unmarried,' but they also share the complete lack of empirical content which is associated with that certainty: The propositions of mathematics are devoid of all factual content; they convey no information whatever on any empirical subject matter."
On the Nature of Mathematical Truth
http://www.epistemelinks.com/Main/Philosophers.aspx?PhilCode=Hemp

it seems to me that its far more rational to NOT believe in something that cant be proven or even tested for than it is TO believe in it.

<snip>

That is a matter of personal preference, not rationality.

For instance, most people who know me believe me to be rational (not necessarily reasonable, but that's a different matter). If we can accept for the sake of argument that I am rational, then I state here, for the record, that I prefer to assume that a thing exists, if it cannot be proven that it does not exist, just to be "on the safe side." I believe my preference to be one that is compatible with a rational world view because history shows us so many examples of people running into trouble because they did not plan or prepare for something they thought they would not run into. So assuming there might be a god just seems prudent to me, in the same way that it seems prudent to assume that there might be sharks swimming about a certain shore.

However, that does not mean that I will necessarily relate to said god the way other people say I should.

So, for instance, if I am asked if I believe in the Christian God, I will say, "I am willing to believe that the Christian God exists."

If asked if that means I worship God, the answer is, "No."

exactly how long do people have to search for evidence that something exists and turning up nothing before it can be written off as non-existent?
Forever. Science that stops testing itself is not science. Philosophy that does not question itself is closed-minded and unenlightened.

If evidence cannot be found, for whatever bullshit reason, that something exists, it might as well not exists.
That is a cop-out.

Forever. Science that stops testing itself is not science. Philosophy that does not question itself is closed-minded and unenlightened.

Darn skippy! You tell them! (sorry, had this same conversation with an idiot at baseball this evening......well, not the same one, but I said exactly what you said to him and he shut up for an inning or so.....)

Sounds like someone is still scared of the boogy man.
Sounds like someone, unable to make an argument, has resorted to insult. Another cop-out.

Forever. Science that stops testing itself is not science. Philosophy that does not question itself is closed-minded and unenlightened.

And a thing whose existence remains only speculative is ...some imaginary thing.

Some knowledge is possible, but only where it is irrefutably free from possible error. If you think you know something that turns out to be mistaken, you never actually knew that thing in the first place. It's kind of a Shroedinger occurrance; it is only with the test's results that it can be determined whether what you thought you knew was actually knowledge or error. If no such test occurs, what you have is a state that is neither of the two; it is perpetual uncertainty.

If I can create a hypothesis that cannot be tested then I cannot know whether that hypothesis is correct or not. It may be appropriate not to factor this hypothesis into my model of how I engage in the world, as per Occam's Razor - indeed, it may prove actively harmful to do so - but it is not appropriate to declare knowledge that the hypothesis is untrue.
QFT

digging way back to what started this all, i thought of another way to proceed. do you believe we can know that a species - the yangtze river dolphin, for example - is extinct?
Obviously, the answer is no, because several species thought to be extinct have since been shown to still exist. Extinction may then be taken as a statistical likelihood, i.e. extreme likelihood that there are no more yangtze river dolphins, or whatever creature.

So you can search for and fail to find yangtze river dolphins from now until the day you die, and you can claim based on your failure to find any that there are none. But if the day after your funeral, someone else finds one, then you were wrong.

I hate to step in, I've been vaguely following this but...

If one cannot show any evidence whatsoever for existence or non-existence, then the default position is that it does not exist.

There is a difference: You are having to create something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. That creation is inherently a waste of time, because there is absolutely no evidence on which you can create it.

The default position has to be: It does not exist.

Fine I cannot prove it doesn't exist, because there is absolutely no evidence either way - but if that is the case, why would you posit something when nothing is clearly the default position
Explain why it HAS to be the default position. Explain why the default position HAS to be the assumption that something you do not know does not exist.

It's like looking at a blank wall and positing there's a painting on it - why would you do that?

You could use all your senses, conduct all sorts of experiments that show there is no painting and then say: it must be outside the realm of my senses and science.

Again, why would you posit it was there at all?

Why not posit a light, why not posit a tapestry, which not posit a million frogs?

Why posit anything at all when you're looking at a blank wall?

The only reason you would do so is because of the question: then why is the wall there?

Scientists ask: How is the wall there?
Evidently, you are not familiar with minimalist art. :p

Do you honestly, really and truly, believe this?

Because if you do, then wow...you are the DREAM target for every corrupt organization. You'll believe anything that is proposed, as long as there is no evidence for it one way or the other?

Well, I propose that there are magical pixies in my backyard who will wipe out the human race unless you send me $10 million. Seeing as how there's no way to disprove their existence, it would be irrational of you to not believe in them, and it would be irrational for you to not take their threats seriously.

Please make that out to cash, if you don't mind.
Bottle, it is actually rather insulting to suggest that because a person chooses not to dismiss the possibility of something on the basis of lack of present evidence, that must mean they can't tell the difference between truth and lie. It implies that, to you, open-minded = stupid. Did you wish to imply that?

Yeah, that's what I said.

The notion that the Earth was created in seven literal days is not consistent at all with the conclusions of modern science... nor is the chronology of creation, even keeping strictly to the Bible.

Anyway, the point was that we can indeed demonstrate that certain gods do not exist, when their qualities and deeds are known not to be possible.
Nonsense. All you can demonstrate is that the specific things said about those gods are not possible. It says nothing at all about the god(s) him/her/their/itself.

Nonsense. All you can demonstrate is that the specific things said about those gods are not possible.

Yes, but "specific things said about those gods" make up our concepts of those gods... without them we are talking about nothing.

We can dispute, perhaps, whether or not certain of those "specific things" are essential to the concept, but that is a dispute that seems pointless to me in this context.

Regardless, my point is that we can empirically verify one way or another certain claims about gods... there is no necessary agnosticism associated with every aspect of the supernatural.

:eek: agape :eek:
agape = pronounced a-gah-pay = Greek for a certain kind of adoration or love.

Apologies if this was already clarified, but it is one of my favorite words.

Indeed. And if you want an apple, you might reasonably ask, "Hey, Paul, do you have an apple?"

Have you ever (seriously) asked your friends if they are gods in disguise?
I know people who have done that. They were joking, but they did believe that all people are avatars of the divine, as they understood that term. That is a belief I find pleasing, so I choose to operate on the assumption that it may be true -- though I've never personally asked the question. Since I assume it to be true, I see little point in asking.

... or (d) are a philosopher.

(d is much worse)

FS is a poor philosopher, imo. I have seldom read such poorly constructed arguments.

EDIT: Seldom outside of NSG, that is.

No - you do not understand no thing in the context of no evidence.

Why have you invented these 'apples'? By your own definition, we wouldn't even have any evidence that apples exist - we would have to define an apple and, in making that definition we assert some thing. That is the first 'act', before which there is no thing.

The problem is using words like 'apple' or 'god', which is making an assertion beyond 'no thing'.

No thing is not an assertion - it is nothing.

To state that there is nothing is an assertion.

Also, to state that there is no thing is an assertion.

That is a belief I find pleasing, so I choose to operate on the assumption that it may be true

There is room for faith even there. I acknowledge this later in the discussion.

But while it is not necessarily irrational to have faith that my friend is a god--using the term in the sense of "very powerful supernatural being"--it is also not something that, even absent faith, we have "no position" about. Quite the contrary.

While we cannot know that our friends are not gods (using the term in the same sense as above), we nevertheless overwhelmingly tend to believe that they are not... and it would take very strong evidence indeed for us to contemplate it as a serious possibility.

That is, basically, how I see the possibility of God--with the obvious difference that, unlike in the case of friends being gods, most people's opinions regarding God's existence are founded in faith. I have no faith as far as this question goes, so my position is the same as it is regarding my friends being gods--I don't know it isn't the case, and I am open to convincing evidence indicating that it is, but the possibility is "out there" enough that I am willing to take a position.

Well, I did find this:

http://www.epistemelinks.com/Main/Philosophers.aspx?PhilCode=Hemp
If you are going to use mathematics as your foundation for epistomology, you may as well quit now. Mathematics is the most abstract of all disciplines and therefore nothing within mathematics can ever have empirical content. However, mathematics is not the universal measure of knowledge -- no matter what the mathematicians say.

So, outside the limited realm of mathematics, the word "bachelor" has a definition, i.e. "unmarried man." Ergo, any man who is married cannot be a bachelor. Ergo, if a married man is called a bachelor, that is an error. The marital status of a man can easily be proven empirically by reference to legal records, which are the final word on marital status, which is a legal condition. The same evidentiary standards can be applied to both the legal records and the definition of "bachelor."

So since both the word and the legal status of the man are subject to tests of proof, they both have empirical content.

Darn skippy! You tell them! (sorry, had this same conversation with an idiot at baseball this evening......well, not the same one, but I said exactly what you said to him and he shut up for an inning or so.....)
You shut up an idiot for a whole inning? Man, I wish I could do that. :D

And a thing whose existence remains only speculative is ...some imaginary thing.
That is an assumption, not a fact.

Yes, but "specific things said about those gods" make up our concepts of those gods... without them we are talking about nothing.

We can dispute, perhaps, whether or not certain of those "specific things" are essential to the concept, but that is a dispute that seems pointless to me in this context.
It may seem pointless to you, but I do not think it is pointless to keep in mind the difference between you being wrong about something and the actual existence/non-existence of that something. To say such a distinction does not matter seems, to me, to imply that only your opinion about a thing matters and if you can't have that, then the entire thing may as well not exist. It strikes me as the ultimate "sour grapes" attitude.

Regardless, my point is that we can empirically verify one way or another certain claims about gods... there is no necessary agnosticism associated with every aspect of the supernatural.
Well, one can choose to close one's mind to other possibilities if one likes, but I personally choose to close my mind to the possibility that a biased world view is a balanced one.

There is room for faith even there. I acknowledge this later in the discussion.

But while it is not necessarily irrational to have faith that my friend is a god--using the term in the sense of "very powerful supernatural being"--it is also not something that, even absent faith, we have "no position" about. Quite the contrary.

While we cannot know that our friends are not gods (using the term in the same sense as above), we nevertheless overwhelmingly tend to believe that they are not... and it would take very strong evidence indeed for us to contemplate it as a serious possibility.

That is, basically, how I see the possibility of God--with the obvious difference that, unlike in the case of friends being gods, most people's opinions regarding God's existence are founded in faith. I have no faith as far as this question goes, so my position is the same as it is regarding my friends being gods--I don't know it isn't the case, and I am open to convincing evidence indicating that it is, but the possibility is "out there" enough that I am willing to take a position.
Okay, but why are you telling me this?

God is a singular entity, which can take many different forms.

Satan is an angel - he is not a god, but he would like to think himself one.

hahah!!!

so, by your own admission, your one god is not omnipotent.

if s/he/it was all powerful, then sheit would have known:

1. adam and st/eve would have done the apple thang.

2. would have known senior diablo* was gonna unleash the nastyness called armagedon, or ragnarok or whatever the frak its called.

3. would be powerful enough to:
A - Get though senior diablo's defences, and
B - Keep people from being tempted by said, senior diablo, by knowing what sheit was gonna do next.
C - Would have known senior diablo was going to do something stupid, like getting kicked out of heaven. (he was probably bored as all hell :p)

BTW - im Pagan, gay, and left-handed. If your one god was ACTUALLY all loving and didn't have some assinine hatred toward those like me, id be christian instead.

*PS - my couscous is a gelatinious blob, this should be odd looking in three days*

-Rafe

senior diablo = reference to a "Jhony the Homicidal Maniac" comic.


either way if you are not all powerful and/or not all knowing you are not omnipotent.

could be the first recorded incident of narcisism? :cool:

- Rafe

Agreed case in point Jesus praying before his death and asking if he could be spared the trial ... kind of insane to pray to yourself

So you are saying the one christan god is incredibly narcisistic(sp?) AND has multiple personality disorder, not "just" permits pedophilia?

Glad i am Pagan!!! all the Ancients that get a "Dance" from us are at least only of one personality! and no known pedophiles!

that cleared things up for me, thanks!

-Rafe

It's an entirely confusing argument that can be used for this, but I will try my best to make it clear. For the Commandment "You shall have no other gods before me," God is saying that he wants humankind to worship him, and nothing should get in the way of that. In a sense, you're correct that humankind serves other "gods," but they are all fashioned by humankind as inadequate attempts to find a higher being that can be found through the Bible.

As for God referring to Himself in the Plural, there is the trinitarian argument of "One God, yet three Persons." What I've come to view it as, is a type of system where the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are in fact the same person, but they each have separate personalities and tasks assigned to them. That's as close as I can get to explaining it, and I fear it is inadequate for what you're looking for.

Evidently, you are not familiar with minimalist art. :p

Haha.

To me, it sounds like he is familiar ...with zazen. ;)

If you are going to use mathematics as your foundation for epistomology, you may as well quit now. Mathematics is the most abstract of all disciplines and therefore nothing within mathematics can ever have empirical content. However, mathematics is not the universal measure of knowledge -- no matter what the mathematicians say.

So, outside the limited realm of mathematics, the word "bachelor" has a definition, i.e. "unmarried man." Ergo, any man who is married cannot be a bachelor. Ergo, if a married man is called a bachelor, that is an error. The marital status of a man can easily be proven empirically by reference to legal records, which are the final word on marital status, which is a legal condition. The same evidentiary standards can be applied to both the legal records and the definition of "bachelor."

So since both the word and the legal status of the man are subject to tests of proof, they both have empirical content.
You misread the quote. He compares mathematical knowledge to other knowledge that has "unquestionable certainty." It's just an example.

FS used it as one of his examples, too.

If it helps understanding any, epistemologically speaking empiricism is not about testing or "proof." It has to do with sensastion. "The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge." It stands in contrast to rationalism, which sees knowledge from reasoning.

That is an assumption, not a fact.

How so? What is the difference? How do you know?

No - you do not understand no thing in the context of no evidence.

Why have you invented these 'apples'? By your own definition, we wouldn't even have any evidence that apples exist - we would have to define an apple and, in making that definition we assert some thing. That is the first 'act', before which there is no thing.

The problem is using words like 'apple' or 'god', which is making an assertion beyond 'no thing'.

No thing is not an assertion - it is nothing.

There is an initial assumption. One we willing make. We accept that our observations have value. However, it's listed as an assumption and it's fully admitted as being iimpossible to actually evidence.

If you'd like to start without that assumption, feel free. It's the only assumption that is permitted in science or logic without evidence.

I didn't make up the rules. This the landscape of science and logic. Are you denying that?

Amusingly, when you get called on the 0 thing you just change the subject. I notice you abandoned your claim altogether and decided to go the slippery slope route.

I'm claiming that the reasons you give for why we can't have evidence against the existence of God apply just as easily to the existence of Bigfoot.



Indeed we can. Just as we can make all kinds of logic-based assumptions based on what we know of morally perfect creatures.



No, it doesn't. It merely assumes that the notions of "justice" and of "moral perfection" are tied together. Which, as I said, is almost definitional.



I can name a whole series of conceptions of justice that the world does not conform to.

It is, of course, possible that God's is none of those... perhaps for Him moral perfection is standing by and watching when hundreds of thousands of innocent people die. But then, the version of God that actually exists is very far from that typically advanced by monotheists.



Who said anything about "necessarily"? On what basis do you assert that Bigfoot necessarily leaves traces behind?

They are merely reasonable assumptions.



Probably, but no, that is not what my basis is.

My basis is that such actions are what any entity would do if it were possessed of omnipotence and moral perfection.



Go ahead. You should go first because the standard you use for demonstrating the non-existence of Bigfoot is the standard my counter must meet, and without seeing your argument I can't know what the goalposts are here.



And God could not have taught you in some other manner? And you accuse me of putting limits on His omnipotence....

We are only morally obligated to prevent unnecessary suffering. But to an omnipotent being, all suffering is unnecessary by definition.



Maybe you would. Would everyone?

And why, if suffering is such a valuable life-lesson, is it so arbitrarily applied? Why do slaves need to learn the lessons of suffering through slavery, when so many others have lived free? Why did Holocaust survivors have to learn the lessons of suffering through experiencing a genocide, when so many others have lived without it? Why do all of us who suffer more than someone, somewhere, need that extra bit of suffering to drive home the point?



If we assume that God actually exists, you're right. There must be something I'm missing--some way to reconcile human suffering with omnibenevolence. since I am human and imperfect, it follows quite logically that I simply cannot understand God's ways.

But starting without unnecessary assumptions, there are two possibilities:

1. God (defined as a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect according to reasonably conventional notions of morality) does not exist.
2. I simply do not understand God's ways.

The relevant question here is: which is more reasonable? I suppose I can grant that it is possible that God's ways are so mysterious that the countless atrocities in the world somehow fit in with this being the best of all possible worlds... but I find it very hard to believe. It may be a possibility, but it is a rather absurd and implausible one.

The alternative, however--that God does not exist--is perfectly reasonable and very much consistent with what we know of the world.



Take your time. I can wait.



Sure.


I'll tell you what. I'll concede when you show any being that has exibited the property of being supernatural. Bigfoot is not claimed to be supernatural. As a natural creature we can actually know properties of it. When you can demonstrate that we've ever observed a supernatural being, I'll happily conceded that you can actually make predictions about supernatural beings.

Ready?

That's not what I said.

I said that the lack of miracles was consistent with a godless universe, not that it was inconsistent with a god-made universe.



But you wouldn't ask them if they are, would you? It's not within the realm of plausibility the way Paul having apples is.

Look, you don't know what color my keyboard is. It makes sense for you to have a default of "no position" on whether or not my keyboard is, say, black. It would be reasonable for you, if you were curious, to ask me if my keyboard were black, and it would be reasonable for you to believe me if I told you that my keyboard was black.

You also don't know, though, whether or not I in fact have no keyboard, and instead communicate with magical letter-fairies that make what I tell them to appear on the screen. But it would not be reasonable for you to ask, sincerely, whether or not this is the case. It would not be reasonable for you to believe this if I told you it were the case. It makes no sense to have "no position" in that case--even if knowledge is in fact unavailable.

So it is with your friends being gods (unless they are really exceptional.) And so it is with the existence of gods in general.

(This, incidentally, allows for faith. It merely also allows for the positive assertion--though not the knowledge--that God does not exist.)



These are not the same at all. But, like I said, I see no reason to argue about it. You have already granted the relevant point.



No. Then happenings are consistent with a godless universe. Not necessarily inconsistent with a god-made one.



Jesus coming down and separating the hellbound from the saved?

Again, you've just moved your unfounded assertion. What does a miracle look like? Something we can't explain? The god of the gaps?

You keep saying it is not inconsistent with a god-made universe? In other words, you've established that the universe's creation may or may not have involved gods, and IF we make irrational assertions about miracles, we can make the further irrational assertions that we are witnessing something consistent with a non-god-made universe.

We accept God is not necessary for explanations, so we don assert God. This is not the same as asserting no God. Claiming a lack of evidence is evidence of lack is a logical fallacy, and it's wholly rejected by science.

It may seem pointless to you, but I do not think it is pointless to keep in mind the difference between you being wrong about something and the actual existence/non-existence of that something.

It is not pointless absolutely; at times it can be very important. It just wasn't really relevant to my point.

Okay, but why are you telling me this?

Because that was the point I was making with the question.

When you can demonstrate that we've ever observed a supernatural being, I'll happily conceded that you can actually make predictions about supernatural beings.

This is nonsense.

We have not "observed" any being that will be born in ten years. Nevertheless, we can make predictions about them based on what we know of their qualities.

Again, you've just moved your unfounded assertion. What does a miracle look like? Something we can't explain? The god of the gaps?

Why does this even matter? I've said twice already that I don't want to argue about this. It's not relevant to the point I'm making.

You keep saying it is not inconsistent with a god-made universe? In other words, you've established that the universe's creation may or may not have involved gods, and IF we make irrational assertions about miracles, we can make the further irrational assertions that we are witnessing something consistent with a non-god-made universe.

This had absolutely nothing to do with my post's point.

Edit: Actually it does, sort of--it is a perfect illustration why all your talk of "miracles" is immaterial to the argument. To say that "the universe's creation may or may not have involved gods" necessarily implies that "what we know of the universe is consistent with a non-god-made universe" (as well as with a god-made universe.)

We accept God is not necessary for explanations, so we don assert God. This is not the same as asserting no God.

So?

I did not say that "God is not necessary for explanations, therefore God does not exist." That is not my argument at all. Did you even read what I said?

This is nonsense.

We have not "observed" any being that will be born in ten years. Nevertheless, we can make predictions about them based on what we know of their qualities.

I take it you don't know how evidence works. That's okay. I'll explain. The way evidence works is we observe things. Learn about them. And then draw logical conclusions about those things and things that are similar to them. This isn't a 100% process, but it's the rules of both logic and science that we do such things.

We have observed animals. We know lots of things about animals. Some of those things may turn out to be wrong, to be incorrect assumptions, but they are valid under the rules of both logic and science.

We have observed exactly no supernatural beings. We have no ability to learn abou them and thus any conclusions are unscientific, uneducated and illogical.



Why does this even matter? I've said twice already that I don't want to argue about this. It's not relevant to the point I'm making.

I know you don't want to argue about this. It pretty much anihilates your point. I'd not want to argue about it if I were you as well. You don't get to vaguely define things as an excuse to make assertions about them. This isn't ID.



This had absolutely nothing to do with my post's point.

Edit: Actually it does, sort of--it is a perfect illustration why all your talk of "miracles" is immaterial to the argument. To say that "the universe's creation may or may not have involved gods" necessarily implies that "what we know of the universe is consistent with a non-god-made universe" (as well as with a god-made universe.)

You think that matters but unless you have some way to show that it is one or the other then you have no ability to make assertions about it. You can't and we don't. It's not good enough that I can't prove you wrong. I also can't prove ID wrong if they verbalize it properly. It'll never matter however, because you can't place unevidenceable and undisprovable assumptions into science and you cannot place such assumptions into logic without evidence.



So?

I did not say that "God is not necessary for explanations, therefore God does not exist." That is not my argument at all. Did you even read what I said?

We are talking about whether or not you can assert nonexistence. How is your point relevant if you're not trying to say that? Did you forget what we're talking about? If you're trying to prove that we can ignore god altogether in science and logic, welcome to the party. I've been saying that for 25 pages.

We have observed exactly no supernatural beings. We have no ability to learn about them and thus any conclusions are unscientific, uneducated and illogical

Ha ha - you're making very good points.

...even that they exist!

Lol

The way evidence works is we observe things.

Blah, blah, blah...

First, you clearly didn't even attempt to respond to my question.

Second, what "evidence" do you require to affirm that black horses are in fact black?

It pretty much anihilates your point.

It has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

Since this seems to not be taking hold, I'll repeat it:

The discussion of 'miracles' has nothing to do with my point.

The discussion of 'miracles' has nothing to do with my point.

The discussion of 'miracles' has nothing to do with my point.

The discussion of 'miracles' has nothing to do with my point.

The discussion of 'miracles' has nothing to do with my point.

How much more do you need?

You think that matters but unless you have some way to show that it is one or the other then you have no ability to make assertions about it.

Unless I have some way to demonstrate one or the other, I cannot assert knowledge.

I have positive beliefs about many things that I do not know, that I cannot demonstrate.

It's not good enough that I can't prove you wrong.

Obviously it isn't.

We are talking about whether or not you can assert nonexistence.

Yes.

I am saying that I can assert that there is no God if I can also assert that my friends are not gods.

Now, of course, you can say that it would be wrong for me to assert that my friends are not gods. But then you would have to say that I should give equal credence to my friend saying "I am God" as I would to my friend saying something about which I genuinely have no position ("I read a book last weekend"), and that would be nonsense.

This is...really an impossible subject. Religion in general is in my opinion. Religion is usually a system of beliefs or laws paired with some divine figurehead(s)... When speaking of god and satan and asking things like how much power does it take to be a god, I can admire the rhetoric and sarcasm...

As far as how much power gods have...None.
I myself was born catholic...But in today's world it doesn't matter to me, So long as I follow the laws of the United States I'm free to do what I please; and no god can stop that. In Catholicism (Hope I spelled my own religion right, eh?) they say Adam and Eve ate the apple from free will. God gave us free will.

I've poised the question to my friends...
"God knows everything, right?"
"Yea..."
"How does he know what's going to happen if we have free will?"

The complexity of this topic is on a level most religious people don't take it to. I'm not afraid to speak in favor of or deny god; I've seen miracles; they cannot all be attributed to a living person, and they cannot all be attributed to coincidence or god.

In my opinion; As I said
Gods have no power on Earth.
The only power they have is that of their worshippers...
In a real life explanation we'll take a brief cruise into history.
Did god call down fire on any soldiers taking part in the crusades?
No. They had a war. A Mortal war in which their beliefs played as their morale.

Same in the Middle East, the division of Islamic religion and their crimes against each other, or Palestinians against Israelis.

Does god roll a tank into someone's house, fire rockets over national borders, stone people to death, or carry a bomb onto a bus and detonate it?

No. It's human. It's the followers that give their dieties power.

This is exaggerated in an old but well-thought computer game "Black & White"
Just a brief synopsis you play as a god-- And if you have no followers; You have no power; You disappear. You are nothing. The more followers; the greater your powers and the ability to throw nifty fireballs and things...

So...I've given my side to it...and while many will disagree and I will disagree with many; I defend their rights to believe as they will so long as I've had my say.

Thanks everyone.

Blah, blah, blah...

First, you clearly didn't even attempt to respond to my question.

Second, what "evidence" do you require to affirm that black horses are in fact black?

Well, we have to observe them, silly.



It has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

Since this seems to not be taking hold, I'll repeat it:

The discussion of 'miracles' has nothing to do with my point.

The discussion of 'miracles' has nothing to do with my point.

The discussion of 'miracles' has nothing to do with my point.

The discussion of 'miracles' has nothing to do with my point.

The discussion of 'miracles' has nothing to do with my point.

How much more do you need?

I know what you say. But since you asserted it was evidence to support a godless universe, I think it's amusing that suddenly you're abandoning it. Any other points you'd like to assert and then when called on it, abandon, or is it just this one?



Unless I have some way to demonstrate one or the other, I cannot assert knowledge.

I have positive beliefs about many things that I do not know, that I cannot demonstrate.

Great. Have fun. If that had anything to do with the logical position, which was and is clearly the point and always has been, then you'd have something worthwhile. Now, what does this have to do with what the default logical and scientific position is?




Obviously it isn't.

And yet... you keep acting as if it's important for you to say "it's not inconsistent" which is essentially, it can't be proven wrong.



Yes.

I am saying that I can assert that there is no God if I can also assert that my friends are not gods.

You can't do either. You will never see a scientific paper that makes such assertions.

However they are not equal. You have observed your friend. You have not observed God. We can based assumptions about your friends on evidence. You cannot base assumptions about God on evidence.

But you won't ever find the word supernatural in a scientific paper or the word god unless it is debunking a positive assertion. We don't make such assertions, because we don't such absurd things.


Now, of course, you can say that it would be wrong for me to assert that my friends are not gods. But then you would have to say that I should give equal credence to my friend saying "I am God" as I would to my friend saying something about which I genuinely have no position ("I read a book last weekend"), and that would be nonsense.

If my friend said he was God, it would be a positive assertion. I would require him to provide evidence.

Ha ha - you're making very good points.

...even that they exist!

Lol

No one is claiming we can say they exist. You were asserting that we could make logical claims that they don't. We cannot. That is a logical fallacy.

I recognize you don't recognize the glaring flaw in your argument but there not only the choices of asserting they exist or asserting they don't. We have the option of not making any assertion at all. Untill you have evidence for either of the first two options, you must choose the third, or you are being illogical and unscientific.

Incidentally, what are you trying to prove?

So far the only thing you've said clearly is that if I can assert things about the supernatural I can assert things about the supernatural. As wise a comment as that is, I certainly hope you've got a more reasonable and useful assertion.

Well, we have to observe them, silly.

So the statement "All black horses are black" (or, to use the usual example, "all bachelors are unmarried") is never justified?

But since you asserted it was evidence to support a godless universe

Where?

I might have said, in our other discussion, that the lack of miracles was evidence of a godless universe when nature is morally neutral and the omnipotent deity is not... but that was a separate point in a separate argument.

And yet... you keep acting as if it's important for you to say "it's not inconsistent" which is essentially, it can't be proven wrong.

Yes, yes--that the absence of miracles is not inconsistent with a god-made universe.

That is to say, I am AGREEING WITH YOU that the absence of miracles does not demonstrate the absence of a divine creator.

I'm sure you're capable of basic reading comprehension, but I'm starting to question if you believe in using it.

You can't do either. You will never see a scientific paper that makes such assertions.

I'm pretty sure that when science deals with subjects appearing to be human it assumes they're human and not gods.

However they are not equal. You have observed your friend. You have not observed God.

I have observed the universe--part of it, anyway--and our question here really concerns it: does it contain God?

If my friend said he was God, it would be a positive assertion. I would require him to provide evidence.

Obviously you would. But I doubt you would require evidence--at least not much--if your friend made an innocuous claim that you similarly couldn't demonstrate true or false either way. Your friend's word would be enough. You'd have no reason to disbelieve his claim... you would have started from a genuine stance of "no position."

But you do not at all start from a stance of "no position" when he claims he is God.

Incidentally, what are you trying to prove?

"But while it is not necessarily irrational to have faith that my friend is a god--using the term in the sense of "very powerful supernatural being"--it is also not something that, even absent faith, we have "no position" about. Quite the contrary.

While we cannot know that our friends are not gods (using the term in the same sense as above), we nevertheless overwhelmingly tend to believe that they are not... and it would take very strong evidence indeed for us to contemplate it as a serious possibility."

I am arguing that this position is a perfectly rational one for a person without faith either way to take regarding God.

I am also arguing, separately, that we can have real evidence regarding God's existence insofar as we speak of a god who has a compelling reason to intervene in the world on a large scale... and that the Christian God is such a god.

"But while it is not necessarily irrational to have faith that my friend is a god--using the term in the sense of "very powerful supernatural being"--it is also not something that, even absent faith, we have "no position" about. Quite the contrary.

While we cannot know that our friends are not gods (using the term in the same sense as above), we nevertheless overwhelmingly tend to believe that they are not... and it would take very strong evidence indeed for us to contemplate it as a serious possibility."

I am arguing that this position is a perfectly rational one for a person without faith either way to take regarding God.

I am also arguing, separately, that we can have real evidence regarding God's existence insofar as we speak of a god who has a compelling reason to intervene in the world on a large scale... and that the Christian God is such a god.

So, let's see. You don't know the difference between what you cannot observe and what you can? Or have you equally observed your friends and various gods? A perfectly rational position would not have to make comparisons that are not apt.

If my friend were to tell me that he won't be around for a while because he's going to Hawaii, I would believe him, even without any corroborating evidence. I would have no reason not to. I would have begun from "no position."

If my friend were to tell me that he won't be around for a while because he's going to Olympus to dine with Zeus and Athena, I would not believe him, and it would take a great deal of corroborating evidence to convince me. I would not have begun from "no position."

"God" is within the same realm of plausibility. Yes, I can have faith and still be rational--because the possibility is there. But the possibility is not enough to necessitate "agnosticism" in its modern sense of "no position."

You don't know the difference between what you cannot observe and what you can?

And on and on we go. :rolleyes:

So the statement "All black horses are black" (or, to use the usual example, "all bachelors are unmarried") is never justified?

You mean are their logical truisms? Of course. How does this benefit your point about things you've not observed?



Where?

I might have said, in our other discussion, that the lack of miracles was evidence of a godless universe when nature is morally neutral and the omnipotent deity is not... but that was a separate point in a separate argument.

What seperate argument? When did we change arguments? You're going to draw these lines, since I'm generally going to require you to be logically consistent.



Yes, yes--that the absence of miracles is not inconsistent with a god-made universe.

That is to say, I am AGREEING WITH YOU that the absence of miracles does not demonstrate the absence of a divine creator.

I'm sure you're capable of basic reading comprehension, but I'm starting to question if you believe in using it.

That's the first time you've said that. You simply started claiming it's not relevant. Good. We are again the point where you have no evidence. Glad we agree.

And I guess because I expect you to be logically consistent I have poor reading comprehension. As such, I'll consider that accusation a compliment from here on out.




I'm pretty sure that when science deals with subjects appearing to be human it assumes they're human and not gods.

No. It assumes they are human. Nothing more. Nothing less. It does not assume they are gods. It does not assume they are not. It only assumes they exert the observed properties of humans if they are humans and vice versa. That's how science works.

I'm certain since you're making this claim you have hundreds of scientific papers claiming that humans are not gods, no?



I have observed the universe--part of it, anyway--and our question here really concerns it: does it contain God?

Whether it contains God would not speak to the existence or lack thereof of God in general. Meanwhile, if it did how would you know? Again, this is about evidence.



Obviously you would. But I doubt you would require evidence--at least not much--if your friend made an innocuous claim that you similarly couldn't demonstrate true or false either way. Your friend's word would be enough. You'd have no reason to disbelieve his claim... you would have started from a genuine stance of "no position."

But you do not at all start from a stance of "no position" when he claims he is God.

No, it wouldn't. I would believe or not believe his claim based on whether or not I trusted my friend. However, if we were having a discussion in the realm of logic or science I would allow no such claim. Since we're discussing that, no, I would not allow that.

I certainly do start from no position. I would not allow him to assert that I am not God in a logical argument. He would have to demonstrate evidence of this. Now, he might claim I'm not omnipotent, since he has evidence. Or I'm not omniscient, since he has evidence. However, he could not assert I am not God. He might believe this, but we aren't talking about beliefs. We are talking about rational positions.

And again, I've actually observed my friends. You've not observed God. EVER. Or is there something you're not telling us?

And on and on we go. :rolleyes:

It's not an insignificant point. Science and logic are based on observations and logical extrapolation. Unless you have some relevant observation to the supernatural, you may not make assertions about it. It's that simple. Comparing things we cannot observe to things that we observe all the time makes no sense unless they are relevantly related. They aren't.

Bitching about how we keep going on when you are incapable of accepting that observation is relevant to two disciplines that require evidence is just ridiculously stupid.

If my friend were to tell me that he won't be around for a while because he's going to Hawaii, I would believe him, even without any corroborating evidence. I would have no reason not to. I would have begun from "no position."

If my friend were to tell me that he won't be around for a while because he's going to Olympus to dine with Zeus and Athena, I would not believe him, and it would take a great deal of corroborating evidence to convince me. I would not have begun from "no position."

"God" is within the same realm of plausibility. Yes, I can have faith and still be rational--because the possibility is there. But the possibility is not enough to necessitate "agnosticism" in its modern sense of "no position."

We aren't talking about relationships or what you believe. We are talking about rational assertions. Logic. Science. It is enough to necessitate agnosticism in logic and science. Which is what we're talking about. We aren't talking about beliefs. Would you like me to quote the number of times I've made the point that our beliefs to not have the same requirements as logic and science and that I was not ever asserting anything about what one might believe? It will cover the entire screen.

If my sister said she'd just gotten back from Hawaii I would not believe her. Does that mean my default position is that Hawaii does not exist or that my sister is a liar?

Truism is irrational.

Truism is irrational.

No, it isn't. Truism is about something that is definitionally true. All black horses are black is a logical truism. By definition, a logical truism must be logical. Or it would be called an illogical truism.

Admittedly, not everything people call a logical truism is actually a logical truism. The meaning of the term in the general sense is just related to the claim that it's obvious, but in logic, a truism requires that it is necessarily logically true.

How does this benefit your point about things you've not observed?

We can speak of the logical consequences of certain qualities and examine whether or not they in fact hold in the real world.

"Supernatural" or not, we can make reasonable predictions about what a morally perfect, omnipotent being is going to do... based on the content of the concepts of "moral perfection" and "omnipotence."

What seperate argument? When did we change arguments?

One following from your comment about Paul and the apples, and the other following from your comment about the impossibility of empirical evidence on the question of God's existence.

They were carried out in separate posts, too, until I combined them this morning to make replying easier.

That's the first time you've said that.

No. No, it isn't.

"I said that the lack of miracles was consistent with a godless universe, not that it was inconsistent with a god-made universe."

"Not necessarily inconsistent with a god-made one."

Hilariously, you yourself noted that I was making this point.

"You keep saying it is not inconsistent with a god-made universe?"

So apparently you do not only refrain from using reading comprehension in regard to my posts, but also your own. Interesting.

No. It assumes they are human.

Why? We can't demonstrate even that.

Whether it contains God would not speak to the existence or lack thereof of God in general.

Replace "universe" with "reality" or whatever as you please. The realm of that which exists.

However, if we were having a discussion in the realm of logic or science I would allow no such claim.

Why not? His word is evidence, especially if he is trustworthy... not convincing evidence against counterevidence, necessarily, but certainly enough to sway you from a genuine stance of "no position."

Now, he might claim I'm not omnipotent, since he has evidence.

Omnipotence is a capacity. The only thing he has evidence of is that you did not exercise it in certain circumstances.

Or I'm not omniscient, since he has evidence.

He doesn't have evidence of this either--only that you did not actually show this knowledge.

However, he could not assert I am not God.

Nor could he assert, by your standards, that you are not omnipotent or omniscient.

Which means, like I said, that he should be as willing to accept that you are as he would be willing to accept anything else about which he genuinely has no position.

And again, I've actually observed my friends. You've not observed God. EVER.

Obviously. But this comparison is stupid, because when speaking of friends, we are talking about their qualities; when speaking of God, we are talking about His existence.

The relevant comparison would be, as I said, not to God itself but to reality. We are speaking of a quality of reality: whether or not in fact contains God. I have indeed observed reality.

We are talking about rational assertions.

So am I. My whole point is that these beliefs are reasonable; they have the necessary justification of rational assertions (though not necessarily of "knowledge.")

If my sister said she'd just gotten back from Hawaii I would not believe her. Does that mean my default position is that Hawaii does not exist or that my sister is a liar?

Depends on why you would not believe her.

If your reason is that you have evidence that she did not go to Hawaii, then no, it means neither of those things... but it does mean that you did not have a stance of "no position" before she made her statement. You have evidence swaying you in one direction.

So am I. My whole point is that these beliefs are reasonable; they have the necessary justification of rational assertions (though not necessarily of "knowledge.")

If they are rational, they have evidence. This is exactly my point.

Now, that we've established this, how do you think things we have observational evidence of, like the traits of your friends relate to our observational evidence on the traits of the supernatural? I've asked this question repeatedly and you repeatedly avoid it.


Depends on why you would not believe her.

If your reason is that you have evidence that she did not go to Hawaii, then no, it means neither of those things... but it does mean that you did not have a stance of "no position" before she made her statement. You have evidence swaying you in one direction.

If my friend claimed to be omniscient, I would have evidence to the contrary. If my friend claimed to be a god, and defined god as having a nature that made all humans gods, I'd shrug and not really care.

If he said he defined that god in any observable way or with any specific traits it would depend on whether or not those traits were consistent with our evidence.

What you don't know is that I believe human beings do have a supernatural nature. I just don't claim to have evidence for it. If my friend claimed this, I would only not care if it was untestable and just accept as what he believed.

my position is the same as it is regarding my friends being gods--I don't know it isn't the case, and I am open to convincing evidence indicating that it is, but the possibility is "out there" enough that I am willing to take a position.

i'd claim that you do know that they aren't, though you might not be able to prove that you know. your belief that they aren't is eminently reasonable, and grounded in the same sort of justificatory processes we use all the time for coming to believe things we know. we lack certainty on the question, obviously, and may therefore not be capable of proving that your belief in the non-godhood of your friends is true. but presuming it actually is true that they aren't gods, then your reasonable belief counts as knowledge.

We can speak of the logical consequences of certain qualities and examine whether or not they in fact hold in the real world.

"Supernatural" or not, we can make reasonable predictions about what a morally perfect, omnipotent being is going to do... based on the content of the concepts of "moral perfection" and "omnipotence."

Only by making unobserved assumptions. You would have to start by saying IF morally-perfect means this and If omnipotence means that and IF a being with such properties would behave similarly to how we think beings with those properties would act.

That's a lot of IFs. You cannot reasonably claim to know what being morally-perfect would make you do. It's not particularly different from guys who claim that if they were a woman they would sit around and play with their boobs all day or if they were black they would ignore racism, etc.




One following from your comment about Paul and the apples, and the other following from your comment about the impossibility of empirical evidence on the question of God's existence.

They were carried out in separate posts, too, until I combined them this morning to make replying easier.

Both are about whether or not one can assert nonexistence. The paul's apples reference was to whether or not it is the logical default to claim nonexistence. The question of whether or not we can assert that supernatural beings do no exist is the same question only more specific. They aren't two seperate conversations.




No. No, it isn't.

"I said that the lack of miracles was consistent with a godless universe, not that it was inconsistent with a god-made universe."

"Not necessarily inconsistent with a god-made one."

Hilariously, you yourself noted that I was making this point.

"You keep saying it is not inconsistent with a god-made universe?"

So apparently you do not only refrain from using reading comprehension in regard to my posts, but also your own. Interesting.

I know I kept saying that. I was saying the lack of miracles tells us nothing about god-made or not god-made and so that it supported nothing. Much like if you claimed that if some Americans are Chinese then Chinese should be the only language spoken in America, and I pointed out that I could equally say that if some people were French that French should be the only language spoken in America. I was pointing out that you made a statement that takes us nowhere.




Why? We can't demonstrate even that.

We can provide evidence for it. That's the point. We don't prove that there are no other possibilities. We simply provide evidence and draw conclusions consistent with that evidence. The problem is when you are talking about things with no evidence, then we take no position. We have no evidence for the existence of supernatural beings or against the existence of supernatural beings. As such, we simply ignore it until we do.


Replace "universe" with "reality" or whatever as you please. The realm of that which exists.

Our ability to observe is limited to that which is observable. As such we can only what exists or doesn't in that which we have observed. Beyond the limits of the natural, we really can't speak at all, because we have no relevant data.


Why not? His word is evidence, especially if he is trustworthy... not convincing evidence against counterevidence, necessarily, but certainly enough to sway you from a genuine stance of "no position."

His word is evidence of what he believes. It would give me reason to take a position on what he believes.



Omnipotence is a capacity. The only thing he has evidence of is that you did not exercise it in certain circumstances.

He has evidence of me exhibiting limited power. Is it possible his observations are wrong? Yes. But all observed evidence leads one the conclusion of a limit. You seem to be requiring absolute proof, which is not the requirement.





He doesn't have evidence of this either--only that you did not actually show this knowledge.

Bullshit. He certainly does have evidence. He has evidence that logically leads to limited knowledge. It could be that my entire life is a sham, but in logic, we rest on evidence, not unevidenced possiblities.

Incidentally, this is precisely the problem with resting on nonexistence. It's unevidenced.


Nor could he assert, by your standards, that you are not omnipotent or omniscient.

Nope. Only if you don't understand science and logic. There is demonstrable evidence for both. Reasonable predictions for what a limited capacity would exhibit and that I meet those predictions. Now, of course, it could be that those observations are just tricks, but we assume in both science and logic that our observations have value.


Which means, like I said, that he should be as willing to accept that you are as he would be willing to accept anything else about which he genuinely has no position.

Again, only if you don't understand science or logic. I take it you don't want to start from that position, do you?



Obviously. But this comparison is stupid, because when speaking of friends, we are talking about their qualities; when speaking of God, we are talking about His existence.

The relevant comparison would be, as I said, not to God itself but to reality. We are speaking of a quality of reality: whether or not in fact contains God. I have indeed observed reality.

No, we aren't. We are speaking to the observable portion of reality. Anything that is not observable we ignore. We refer to that as natural. The observable portion of reality. As such, the supernatural cannot be spoken to. This is also why the realm of the natural expands are our abilty to observe does.

He has evidence of me exhibiting limited power.

No, he has evidence of you exhibiting power consistent with limited power.

But by the very definition of "unlimited", your exhibitions of power are also consistent with unlimited power.

He would only have evidence of limited power if he knew of a compelling motive you had that would make you use your power more than you did.

Like, say, omnibenevolence. ;)

The rest seems to mostly be confused nonsense, or repetition, and I'm not inclined to wade through it.

and grounded in the same sort of justificatory processes we use all the time for coming to believe things we know.

A statement like "Soheran's hair is brown" is indeed dependent on notions that have no more (and perhaps less) justification than "My friends aren't gods."

But within an empirical framework that more or less assumes the accuracy of sensory information, I can know that my hair is brown in a way I can't know that my friends aren't gods.

No, he has evidence of you exhibiting power consistent with limited power.

But by the very definition of "unlimited", your exhibitions of power are also consistent with unlimited power.

No, they aren't. My not being able to lift a rock is not consistent with unlimited power. The only way to get there is to assume what you're observing is a trick. That it's a trick is on you to prove.

You are conducting a burden of proof fallacy. Once I've presented evidence it is for you to demonstrate that flaws are there. It's not enough to suggest it's possible. You have to demonstrate that they occur or my evidence outweighs yours. In logic, in science, that's enough.

You're attempting to make things we have observational evidence for but cannot conclusively prove, equal to things we have not the first bit of evidence for. By such a requirement, ID would be both logical and scientific.


He would only have evidence of limited power if he knew of a compelling motive you had that would make you use your power more than you did.

Like, say, omnibenevolence. ;)

The rest seems to mostly be confused nonsense, or repetition, and I'm not inclined to wade through it.

What we must agree on is that one accepted point of logic and science is that if that if our observations are unreliable it is on the person asserting they are unreliable to show this. This is why in science that if I show observations and provide a hypothesis, that the testing sets out to prove it wrong. If it holds up it stands.

You seem to think that because you cannot PROVE something that it's the same as not having evidence. I cannot prove my friends are not omniscient, but I certainly can evidence it. You can't just say, yes, you have evidence, but you have to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Prove we're being tricked, or the evidence stands.


A statement like "Soheran's hair is brown" is indeed dependent on notions that have no more (and perhaps less) justification than "My friends aren't gods."

But within an empirical framework that more or less assumes the accuracy of sensory information, I can know that my hair is brown in a way I can't know that my friends aren't gods.

Bullshit. We have an explicit definition of Soheran, hair and brown. We have no such accepted definition of gods. We have evidence of whether Soheran has hair, whether hair exists, whether Soheran does, whether brown exists, and whether Soheran's hair exhibits the property of brown.

While we have evidence about my friends. We certainly cannot meet any of those requirements about gods, their definition, whether they exist, etc.

EDIT: Speaking of reading comprehension - just read that last bit again. Ignore my reply to your reply to FS. You qualified your statements appropriately. Amusingly, that's the point I was making. Within an emperical framework, we have evidence for many things, like the limits of my friends, but no evidence for the supernatural properties you're discussing.

My not being able to lift a rock is not consistent with unlimited power.

Your friend doesn't know that you can't lift the rock. He only knows that you don't lift the rock.

Once I've presented evidence

You haven't.

if our observations are unreliable

Who said they were?

Your friend has neither observed non-omnipotence nor non-omniscience.

We have no such accepted definition of gods.

As I clarified to Muravyets, I am using "gods" in the sense of "very powerful supernatural beings."

You saw fit to speak of it specifically as regards two of the qualities of the Christian god--omnipotence and omniscience.

So, yes... insofar as I have been using the term "gods", I have indeed been using a definition.

We have evidence of whether Soheran has hair, whether hair exists, whether Soheran does, whether brown exists, and whether Soheran's hair exhibits the property of brown.

Actually, you only have good evidence for any of that if you make certain crucial assumptions about the nature of the universe and the capability of your senses to accurately represent it.

Amusingly, that's the point I was making. Within an emperical framework, we have evidence for many things, like the limits of my friends,

No, we don't.

That is, incidentally, what we are arguing about.

You think that mindlessly repeating the necessary qualification is enough to show that I'm wrong... but only because you don't bother to understand what I'm saying.

Your friend doesn't know that you can't lift the rock. He only knows that you don't lift the rock.

All the evidence we have is that I actually cannot lift the rock. We accept this as evidence. Mostly because we have no contrary evidence. Are you seriously suggesting that we start treating things in such a manner? We don't know rocks aren't really an alien species. We only know they appear to us to be an alien species.

I'm dropping the rest for the moment, since it's pretty relevant that you seem to think that in an emperical sense, we can assume that we're being tricked.

Or we can start discussing the color of the button on the computer running this simulation we pretend is the real world. If we're going to do that warn me so I can jam a pencil in my eyes.

There is a big difference between accepting that when we have no evidence either way, that we must not decide and assuming that unless we can prove 100% that something is true, that we must not make any conclusions. Skepticism is expected in both science and logic, but that doesn't mean we can make no conclusions.

Actually, you only have good evidence for any of that if you make certain crucial assumptions about the nature of the universe and the capability of your senses to accurately represent it.

And if I'd not already pointed this out, you'd have a point. Since I pointed out that we accept this a part of the definition of both science and logic, so as to make it have practical value, either you're not reading or not understanding.

Overall, it's a leap of faith. But it cannot be denied, because it's a part of the definition of both disciplines.

I find it amusing that in reference to this point people have been trying to prove that logic has to accept a position of nonexistence as rational by questioning the very assumptions of logic. You don't have to like logic. Go outside of it if you like. Say logic is a ridiculous discipline. I don't care.

But I've been operating in the realm of logic throughout the entire conversation. As such, you MUST accept the definitional requirements of logic, or you're not actually speaking to my point.

So let's not play the color of the button in the machine game. In logic and science we accept observational evidence, unless we are given a SPECIFIC REASON to question it. You've NEVER provided one. In each case people bitch about my qualification of the argument, but I give a flying crap about what people believe. We are speaking to the realms of science and logic. Outside that you can talk about how your penis whistles whenever no one is listening and I'll have nothing to say.

All the evidence we have is that I actually cannot lift the rock.

Even if his observations are assumed to be accurate, he has no evidence indicating that you can't lift the rock.

He observes you not picking it up. That, and nothing else.

Even if his observations are assumed to be accurate, he has no evidence indicating that you can't lift the rock.

He observes you not picking it up. That, and nothing else.

Yes. I don't have evidence that rocks can't speak. I observe them not speaking and having none of the known means by which to speak. You seem to have a problem with the rules of evidence. In which case, you're welcome to discuss this with someone else, because you're no longer talking about logic or science.

Under both logic and science, if you wish to claim that evidence doesn't lead to such conclusions you must prove that there is something wrong with that conclusion. I've observed a bird outside my window. I just assumed it was a bird based on my understanding of a bird. And I'm not certain I'm wearing pants. There's a reason why science and logic ignore such conclusions.

We ignore conclusions that cannot have evidence, so, no, we don't reach the conclusion that men are capable of unlimited power until we observe a man actually exhibiting this trait (meaning we cannot find the limit to his power). Until then we follow the rules of logic and follow the evidence. We use EVIDENCE to assign traits to the natural world. The day we observe a supernatural trait like omnipotence in natural creatures, we'll cease to ignore it. Until then, we don't assume omnipotence doesn't exist as a trait. But we also don't assume that when we observe what appears to be limited power, that it's not. The moment we start doing that we might as well pretend to be in the matrix, because it's a viable a conclusion as claiming that observing an apparent limit is valueless.

Yes. I don't have evidence that rocks can't speak. I observe them not speaking and having none of the known means by which to speak. You seem to have a problem with the rules of evidence.
What are the rules of evidence, in this case?

I deduce that the rules of evidence lead us to draw conclusions based on deduction and induction. Deduction tells us that you haven't picked up a rock; induction tell us that, as a human, you can.

So what are the rules of evidence? Are we to draw conclusions only after you pick up a rock? How does that get us to Mars?

What are the rules of evidence, in this case?

I deduce that the rules of evidence lead us to draw conclusions based on deduction and induction. Deduction tells us that you haven't picked up a rock; induction tell us that, as a human, you can.

So what are the rules of evidence? Are we to draw conclusions only after you pick up a rock? How does that get us to Mars?

What color is the button on the machine?

We draw conclusions after I try to pick up the rock. After we've conducted tests and observed evidence.

If you don't know the rules of evidence, I'm not inclined to explain them to you, mostly because I believe in the value of experience, and my experience is that you won't actually care what I say and will just complain that you don't like those rules. The methods of collecting emperical evidence are widely available to you. Educate yourself and let me know when you're ready to discuss within those bounds. If you'd prefer not to, as I've stated clearly and repeatedly, I'm not interested.

The only conclusion I can come up with after reading the last few posts:

God laughs (depends on what that is to It) at petty human logic.

The only conclusion I can come up with after reading the last few posts:

God laughs (depends on what that is to It) at petty human logic.

If there is a God, I would fathom that He quite certainly laughs at our attempts to reign him or the world in under the laws of logic.

But that's just my belief. ;)

What color is the button on the machine?

We draw conclusions after I try to pick up the rock. After we've conducted tests and observed evidence.

If you don't know the rules of evidence, I'm not inclined to explain them to you, mostly because I believe in the value of experience, and my experience is that you won't actually care what I say and will just complain that you don't like those rules. The methods of collecting emperical evidence are widely available to you. Educate yourself and let me know when you're ready to discuss within those bounds. If you'd prefer not to, as I've stated clearly and repeatedly, I'm not interested.
Ah, I'm not worthy of knowing what the "rules of evidence" are; okay, I can accept that. And that these rules dictate logic, I can accept that. And that logic requires you to have picked up a rock before we can make a claim that you've picked up a rock, I can accept that. What I can't accept, then, logically following, is the scientific method, which oddly enough suggests that I should make some sort of hypothesis before I design a test for it. I cannot, according to the rules of evidence, make any hypothesis until after it's been tested.

If there is a God, I would fathom that He quite certainly laughs at our attempts to reign him or the world in under the laws of logic.

But that's just my belief. ;)

Gotta keep faith that somebody's that responsible for all this (reality, universe, everything) is doing it for the lulz.

Ah, I'm not worthy of knowing what the "rules of evidence" are; okay, I can accept that. And that these rules dictate logic, I can accept that. And that logic requires you to have picked up a rock before we can make a claim that you've picked up a rock, I can accept that. What I can't accept, then, logically following, is the scientific method, which oddly enough suggests that I should make some sort of hypothesis before I design a test for it. I cannot, according to the rules of evidence, make any hypothesis until after it's been tested.

No, you're not worthy of having feigned ignorance indulged. If you honestly do not know the rules of evidence, now would be when you admit you should have never begun posting without educating yourself appropriately. I mean we're talking about something very basic to any conversation about logical or scientific claims/assumptions.

Meanwhile, a hypothesis is not an assumption. A hypothesis is something you are proposing might be true, but it cannot be used as an assumption in other scientific analysis until you've tested it thoroughly. That's the point. Until you've gather evidence supporting a claim, it's not considered a valid logical or scientific claim.

People are saying that we can make assumptions without evidence. They are wrong. You show me any scientific data that will allow you to make an assumption that has no evidence. Even in the case of a hypothesis you have to propose testing for that hypothesis. If it's untestable, it would be positively rejected.

Meanwhile, even a hypothesis is based on observation.

I always thought the worship of various saints and angels and empowering them with various traits lent Christianity a distinctly polytheistic feel. Probably a holdover from the changes the faith went through to convert the Romans.

I know that this is a post from a long time ago, but I just thought I'd clear this up a little.

I agree that the way many Christians treat Saints and the Virgin are probably a hold over from early Christian interactions with the Romans ect. (it's interesting to look at how Mary and the goddess Isis were interpolated in early Christianity). In general, however, I don't know any one in my church who would say they woship saints (and we have a lot of them) as this would be seen as idolatry. "Venerate" is probably the better word.

Subordinate to =/= in control of =/= extension of.

If you are a boss, your employees are "under you," but do you really have control over them and are they really extensions of you?

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you? Are you seriously arguing that a boss does not dictate what his workers do in terms of work? If God hires Lucifer for the position of Satan ("enemy") so that people will know what evil is and have an icon to symbolize the idea of evil, and henceforth assigns him various evil deeds to accomplish on earth, that's all the control he needs. He works for God as Satan.

You are the organism. As such, a tumor growing on your liver is subordinate to you, and in a quite literal sense, it is an extension of you, but do you control it? Not if it kills you.

... A tumor on you is not subordinate. It does not care what you want. It does not answer to you. It's simply physically attached, in a pseudo-parasitic fashion. I should whip out my analogy police picture on you for this crap.

You are attempting to base your argument on a presumption of a relationship that is by no means guaranteed and, therefore, not a safe assumption on which to proceed.

... Anybody know what the hell he just said? Anyone?

If you honestly do not know the rules of evidence, now would be when you admit you should have never begun posting without educating yourself appropriately. I mean we're talking about something very basic to any conversation about logical or scientific claims/assumptions.

Meanwhile, a hypothesis is not an assumption. A hypothesis is something you are proposing might be true, but it cannot be used as an assumption in other scientific analysis until you've tested it thoroughly. That's the point. Until you've gather evidence supporting a claim, it's not considered a valid logical or scientific claim.

People are saying that we can make assumptions without evidence. They are wrong. You show me any scientific data that will allow you to make an assumption that has no evidence. Even in the case of a hypothesis you have to propose testing for that hypothesis. If it's untestable, it would be positively rejected.

Meanwhile, even a hypothesis is based on observation.
I will gladly admit that I regret having entered this discussion, but I was hoping for your understanding of "rules of evidence" as clarification to understand your arguments better. I hope that's not a bit too much to ask.

Assumption (http://www.answers.com/topic/hypothesis?cat=biz-fin) is certainly a part of the hypothesis, even in a scientific context, and yes, it is based on observation, which is evidence. This is precisely why I am confused by your arguments.

But nevermind.

I will gladly admit that I regret having entered this discussion, but I was hoping for your understanding of "rules of evidence" as clarification to understand your arguments better. I hope that's not a bit too much to ask.

Assumption (http://www.answers.com/topic/hypothesis?cat=biz-fin) is certainly a part of the hypothesis, even in a scientific context, and yes, it is based on observation, which is evidence. This is precisely why I am confused by your arguments.

But nevermind.

I would remind you that when Jocabia enters a debate, he does so not to prove a point or to learn anything, but to win. By any means necessary, win. Get the concession, get the confusion, get the win.

Keep that in mind when you're trying to make sense of what he says. :p

Assume the OP's question was on a test. Would anyone here really write "polytheism"? I only ask because this thread is 74 pages long, and I suspect the excitement of the arguing is behind it, not any real convictions. I have nothing against arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm just curious.

Assume the OP's question was on a test. Would anyone here really write "polytheism"? I only ask because this thread is 74 pages long, and I suspect the excitement of the arguing is behind it, not any real convictions. I have nothing against arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm just curious.

On a test? no. In a discussion....well I think this topic shows that answer.

Assume the OP's question was on a test. Would anyone here really write "polytheism"? I only ask because this thread is 74 pages long, and I suspect the excitement of the arguing is behind it, not any real convictions. I have nothing against arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm just curious.

Yes, I'd write polytheism. I've taken school tests where I knew damn well what they wanted me to write as the answer, but I believed it to be untrue, so instead I put what I wanted and damned the consequences.

Yeah, I roll like that.

Assume the OP's question was on a test. Would anyone here really write "polytheism"? I only ask because this thread is 74 pages long, and I suspect the excitement of the arguing is behind it, not any real convictions. I have nothing against arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm just curious.

It depends on the context of the question. In any case, if the teacher would disagree with the answer there is obviously plenty of room (say: 74 pages) for debate ;)

I will gladly admit that I regret having entered this discussion, but I was hoping for your understanding of "rules of evidence" as clarification to understand your arguments better. I hope that's not a bit too much to ask.

Assumption (http://www.answers.com/topic/hypothesis?cat=biz-fin) is certainly a part of the hypothesis, even in a scientific context, and yes, it is based on observation, which is evidence. This is precisely why I am confused by your arguments.

But nevermind.

Assumptions are part of a hypothesis, and again they require evidence. You have to support your assumptions or your claims. What we are discussing is whether or not you can make claims or assumptions without evidence, whether the negative position is the default, and the fact it it's not. Any assertion requires evidence. When they talk about the positive assertion requiring evidence they mean the claim. The negative is just saying the assertion is not valid, not true. It doesn't mean that if you word your statement in such a way that it contains a negative term, that it does not require evidence.

The rules of evidence, my rules of evidence, are the same rules required for science or logic in general. I'm not making up new rules. And since I've seen you discuss them before, I don't think any request you make to know what they are is genuine. I'm not going to explain the same things I've explained in threads with you in the past. It's a waste of my time and yours. So, yes, requiring me to explain basic concepts to you that you already know is, in fact, too much to ask.

I would remind you that when Jocabia enters a debate, he does so not to prove a point or to learn anything, but to win. By any means necessary, win. Get the concession, get the confusion, get the win.

Keep that in mind when you're trying to make sense of what he says. :p

Yes. I debate to win. I also learn lots of things in debates. And I generally attempt to contribute. You should try it. I have faith you can do it. Decide what your position is and then present evidence. Or debunk my position. Or offer something.

Or you can insult me. That'll be helpful. Hell, at least do both.

Yes. I debate to win. I also learn lots of things in debates. And I generally attempt to contribute. You should try it. I have faith you can do it. Decide what your position is and then present evidence. Or debunk my position. Or offer something.

Or you can insult me. That'll be helpful. Hell, at least do both.

*shrugs* I'm not insulting you, I'm just retelling what you've already said.

EDIT: Also, we're not even on the same topic - you've gone off on a whole 'nother dealie with FS and Soheran and those other wacky, silly people.

*shrugs* I'm not insulting you, I'm just retelling what you've already said.

EDIT: Also, we're not even on the same topic - you've gone off on a whole 'nother dealie with FS and Soheran and those other wacky, silly people.

I noticed your smilie. I was just being snarky. And, yes, we went way off-topic, but given the nature of the question of the OP, it's pretty primary whether or not you can make certain assumptions without qualifying or supporting them.

Is God truly comprehensible? First of all, I am appalled that there would be an argument over religion:headbang:. And second of all, it clearly says in the Bible that although the Holy Trinity consists of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, there is still only one God. How is that so? Two things. First, God has revealed himself in THREE different forms, and second, God is beyond human comprehension. And the original argument of "Though shall not have any God before me," You have to remember that at the time, there were many pagan nations. It doesn't mean that Christianity has more than one God! It only means other nations at the time had more than one God.

First of all, I am appalled that there would be an argument over religion:headbang:.

Why ? Just the fact that many contradicting ones exist would seem to be a good reason to have a jolly old debate ;)

Is God truly comprehensible? First of all, I am appalled that there would be an argument over religion:headbang:. And second of all, it clearly says in the Bible that although the Holy Trinity consists of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, there is still only one God. How is that so? Two things. First, God has revealed himself in THREE different forms, and second, God is beyond human comprehension. And the original argument of "Though shall not have any God before me," You have to remember that at the time, there were many pagan nations. It doesn't mean that Christianity has more than one God! It only means other nations at the time had more than one God.

Silly noob jumps into the fray at page 75 and expects to be taken seriously. I lol.

Silly noob jumps into the fray at page 75 and expects to be taken seriously. I lol.
I stopped taking this thread seriously a long time ago.

I stopped taking this thread seriously a long time ago.

Of course, of course.

I only take the posts that are either by me or have me quoted relatively seriously. =D

First of all, I am appalled that there would be an argument over religion:headbang:.

when has there ever not been an argument over religion?


And second of all, it clearly says in the Bible that although the Holy Trinity consists of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, there is still only one God.

where?

Is God truly comprehensible? First of all, I am appalled that there would be an argument over religion:headbang:. And second of all, it clearly says in the Bible that although the Holy Trinity consists of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, there is still only one God. How is that so? Two things. First, God has revealed himself in THREE different forms, and second, God is beyond human comprehension. And the original argument of "Though shall not have any God before me," You have to remember that at the time, there were many pagan nations. It doesn't mean that Christianity has more than one God! It only means other nations at the time had more than one God.

Have you ever heard of the Arrian Heresies? Many Christians used to believe that Jesus was just a man, still the son of god, but still a man. You know what happened to them? They were persecuted and killed.

Assume the OP's question was on a test. Would anyone here really write "polytheism"? I only ask because this thread is 74 pages long, and I suspect the excitement of the arguing is behind it, not any real convictions. I have nothing against arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm just curious.

I would.

The way "God" is seen by many people in its being as a person --with traits similar to ours (i.e. a "personal" God) like compassion, intelligence, love --presents worship of an image of God, rather than anything underlying the image. In the exact same way, the Devil has an image, and is proclaimed to be an actual being based on that image.

Is God truly comprehensible? First of all, I am appalled that there would be an argument over religion:headbang:. And second of all, it clearly says in the Bible that although the Holy Trinity consists of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, there is still only one God. How is that so? Two things. First, God has revealed himself in THREE different forms, and second, God is beyond human comprehension. And the original argument of "Thou shall not have any God before me," You have to remember that at the time, there were many pagan nations. It doesn't mean that Christianity has more than one God! It only means other nations at the time had more than one God.Your use of the word "pagan" is somewhat odd... what exactly do you mean with "pagan nations"? The entire world was non-Jewish (except for the handful of Jews still around) when the fabricated biblical god allegedly incarnated himself in a certain Yeshua. And of course the nations had more than one god, and in fact not too long (300-500 years) before that even the Jews had more than one god.

Is God truly comprehensible?Are Xenu and Moroni comprehensible?

Sadly: 75 pages and I still haven't gotten a straight answer.

Sadly: 75 pages and I still haven't gotten a straight answer.

Yes you have, you have chosen to ignore it.


wait.......which question. :p

Yes you have, you have chosen to ignore it.


wait.......which question. :p

Yet again, for what feels like the tenth time in this thread:

Is God, or is Satan, the avatar of evil as we know it on Earth?

Pick one. Just one. Not very difficult to do. You can even bullshit your way out of a real answer and say that while God may be the avatar of evil, his ways are holy and perfect and we will never understand him so we just have to accept it. That answer would piss me off, but I'll take it, because it's been 75 damned pages and nobody's had the nads to answer this one question.

Yet again, for what feels like the tenth time in this thread:

Is God, or is Satan, the avatar of evil as we know it on Earth?

Pick one. Just one. Not very difficult to do. You can even bullshit your way out of a real answer and say that while God may be the avatar of evil, his ways are holy and perfect and we will never understand him so we just have to accept it. That answer would piss me off, but I'll take it, because it's been 75 damned pages and nobody's had the nads to answer this one question.

totally not trying to piss you off, but can you define avatar of evil?

Yet again, for what feels like the tenth time in this thread:

Is God, or is Satan, the avatar of evil as we know it on Earth?

Pick one. Just one. Not very difficult to do. You can even bullshit your way out of a real answer and say that while God may be the avatar of evil, his ways are holy and perfect and we will never understand him so we just have to accept it. That answer would piss me off, but I'll take it, because it's been 75 damned pages and nobody's had the nads to answer this one question.

I gave a straight answer. :P
The answer is "yes."

totally not trying to piss you off, but can you define avatar of evil?

I'm okay with doing that, I'm just glad someone's finally answering it! :p

For Satan to qualify as a diety, he must be the avatar of an aspect of Earth. Basically, like Hades was the avatar of death and hell. He ruled over certain things from a supernatural realm that directly affected Earth itself.

In a religion such as Christianity, where it's very polarized by what is holy and what is evil, there's an obvious avatar of good in God - as I said before, in Christianity, he created the universe by himself, so by default he controls pretty much all the aspects as an avatar, but for a religion so polarized by evil, and in this case one that has the face of evil being marked by 'The Beast', 666, AntiChrist, Prince of Lies, ruler of hell with dominion over the damned, it seems logical to assume that this powerful and feared being would be the avatar of evil.

Logical, yes, but again, it's possible that this title, too, is claimed by God if Satan is simply filling an office given to him by his employer, God. If this is so, then God is the avatar of evil by extension, and Satan is just a means and a puppet.

So either Satan is the avatar of evil of his own free will, and is a deity, or God is the avatar of evil, and uses Satan to do his bidding, and Satan is no more a deity than any other angel that works under the guidance of God.


Two choices. Two. Pick one.

I gave a straight answer. :P
The answer is "yes."

*smack*

I'm okay with doing that, I'm just glad someone's finally answering it! :p

For Satan to qualify as a diety, he must be the avatar of an aspect of Earth. Basically, like Hades was the avatar of death and hell. He ruled over certain things from a supernatural realm that directly affected Earth itself.

In a religion such as Christianity, where it's very polarized by what is holy and what is evil, there's an obvious avatar of good in God - as I said before, in Christianity, he created the universe by himself, so by default he controls pretty much all the aspects as an avatar, but for a religion so polarized by evil, and in this case one that has the face of evil being marked by 'The Beast', 666, AntiChrist, Prince of Lies, ruler of hell with dominion over the damned, it seems logical to assume that this powerful and feared being would be the avatar of evil.

Logical, yes, but again, it's possible that this title, too, is claimed by God if Satan is simply filling an office given to him by his employer, God. If this is so, then God is the avatar of evil by extension, and Satan is just a means and a puppet.

So either Satan is the avatar of evil of his own free will, and is a deity, or God is the avatar of evil, and uses Satan to do his bidding, and Satan is no more a deity than any other angel that works under the guidance of God.


Two choices. Two. Pick one.

The answer: God is the avatar of evil, and uses Satan to do his bidding. However, he leaves it to Satan to get into the details.

Haha.

To me, it sounds like he is familiar ...with zazen. ;)

Somehow, I think that if he was familiar with zazen, he wouldn't have posted all those posts.

You misread the quote. He compares mathematical knowledge to other knowledge that has "unquestionable certainty." It's just an example.

FS used it as one of his examples, too.
And I think you misread FS's original post that started this side debate. He sought to claim that knowledge can only be had about things about which there can be NO unquestionable certainty because they lack empirical content, and he cited the bachelor thing as one of his examples even though it is clearly not a thing without empirical content. I personally am of the opinion that was a plain, old-fashioned mistake on FS's part in the typing of his post -- I think he left out a word or two in his sentence -- but it is part and parcel of the poor construction of an over-all ill-considered argument.

If it helps understanding any, epistemologically speaking empiricism is not about testing or "proof." It has to do with sensastion. "The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge." It stands in contrast to rationalism, which sees knowledge from reasoning.
Yes, I know that. That is the definition of "empiricism." I am not arguing empiricism here. I am using the adjective "empirical" to describe things which have some kind of physical presence in the world -- even if it is only in the form of physical documentation, such as marital status -- and if you read all my posts throughout the thread, you should see that I am using it in reference to ONE KIND of thing about which there can be knowledge within the requirements of what constitutes "knowledge," which I also defined earlier.

How so? What is the difference? How do you know?

I can say that I know you are making an assumption because I have before me the vast expanse of all your research on the matter (presumably you have presented it in support of your assertion) which is utterly devoid of any proof that Object/Creature X does not exist in the universe. The only thing it proves is that X was not where you looked for it. When I compare the vast expanse of your research about X to the vast expanse of the universe, I can easily see that your research is not 100% exhaustive, and that there remain areas/possibilities unexplored, although they may be extremely remote. By simply confirming that you have, in fact, not looked everywhere, I can see as plain as day that you are simply assuming that, since X is not where you did look, it will not be where you didn't look either. But until you do look in those places, you will simply be making assumptions about what is or is not there, exactly the same as the person who assumes that X does exist in those unexplored places.

Now, we may accept and proceed upon an assumption that a thing long sought and not found does not exist, based on simple probabilities, but it will always be an assumption, not a fact, and there will always be the chance that someday it will turn out to have been wrong all along. I fail to see why this should be a problem as long as we are honest about it and willing to admit that we choose to fill in the blanks of our knowledge with assumptions, and are prepared to defend those assumptions with our reasoning.

For example: The existence of early hominids is a fact. We have their bones and remains of their DNA. We know what, where and when they were. How they lived, the things they did, why they did it -- all that is pure speculation based on broad assumptions about the validity of applying observed modern animal and human behaviors to creatures we cannot observe. For this reason, I often get annoyed with those "Walking with Cavemen" type shows that spin elaborate stories about hominid life based on nothing. Just a few scraps of bone and the rest filled in with imagination.

Now there are good reasons to engage in these fantasies. They give us hypothetical models to test. But to pretend that we KNOW these things about early hominids, that they are facts, is simply ridiculous. I dislike the shows that do present these ideas to the general public, because they do not make it clear that they are just speculations, and may lead lay viewers to believe that they are being given actual facts.

It is not pointless absolutely; at times it can be very important. It just wasn't really relevant to my point.
You said "pointless." I see you meant "irrelevant." Not synonyms, but okay.


Because that was the point I was making with the question.
And yet I found it irrelevant to the argument I was making. I thought it more relevant to Jocabia's arguments. Maybe you'd like to direct it to him. For myself, I have no ojection to those particular statements of yours. However, they do not enlighten, further, alter, or counter any of the other statements made by either you or me in our conversation.

So the statement "All black horses are black" (or, to use the usual example, "all bachelors are unmarried") is never justified?
Soheran, this is a bad form of argument because "black" and "bachelor" are not equivalent terms.

"Black" is an adjective that modifies "horse" (noun). In the phrase "black horse," "black" is a variable. The color black is NOT a DEFINITIVE trait of a horse. The animal does not have to be black to be a horse. This is proven by the fact that there are other colors of horse in the world. Ergo, the statement "all horses are black" is nonsense and is shown to be nonsense the moment a white horse trots into view.

"Bachelor," however, is not an adjective. It is a noun, and it means "unmarried man." "Bachelor" is not a variable modifier, and because the meaning of the word requires both unmarried-ness and maleness, the concepts of "unmarried" and "male" are both DEFINITIVE traits of a "bachelor." In order to be a bachelor, the creature must be a male and not married. Otherwise, it's not a bachelor. Ergo, the statement "all bachelors are unmarried" is a perfectly sound statement of fact. If he was married, he'd be a "husband," not a "bachelor."

So, anyone with any ability to read a dictionary, must see that changing the color of the horse does not stop it from being a horse, but changing the marital status of the man can indeed stop him from being a bachelor.

If you cannot tell the difference between a "justifiable" statement and a non-"justifiable" statement, then I do not think you will be able to carry your larger argument.

If my friend were to tell me that he won't be around for a while because he's going to Hawaii, I would believe him, even without any corroborating evidence. I would have no reason not to. I would have begun from "no position."

If my friend were to tell me that he won't be around for a while because he's going to Olympus to dine with Zeus and Athena, I would not believe him, and it would take a great deal of corroborating evidence to convince me. I would not have begun from "no position."

"God" is within the same realm of plausibility. Yes, I can have faith and still be rational--because the possibility is there. But the possibility is not enough to necessitate "agnosticism" in its modern sense of "no position."
This sounds to me like, "There is nothing forcing me to state in every instance that I acknowledge a possibility against my preferred assumed position, so I'm going to go forward with the assumption that most comfortably supports my preferred position, and simply claim that I'm starting from 'no position' and call it even since, if you do force me to, I will admit that I don't really know for certain."

In other words, "My position is X, and that's what I base my assumptions on, whether I admit it or not."

i'd claim that you do know that they aren't, though you might not be able to prove that you know. your belief that they aren't is eminently reasonable, and grounded in the same sort of justificatory processes we use all the time for coming to believe things we know. we lack certainty on the question, obviously, and may therefore not be capable of proving that your belief in the non-godhood of your friends is true. but presuming it actually is true that they aren't gods, then your reasonable belief counts as knowledge.
This is a rephrasing of your ridiculous assertion that believing an assumption is the same as knowing a fact. Several people have exposed the flaws in this argument. You have ignored all those counter-arguments, yet you continue to promote this debunked nonsense of yours.

If you cannot prove that you know, then you do not know -- and I don't know that you know either, and therefore have no reason to believe your assertion that you know.

Reasonable belief =/= knowledge. Find a way to cope with that.

The answer: God is the avatar of evil, and uses Satan to do his bidding. However, he leaves it to Satan to get into the details.

Then to you, Christianity is arguably monotheistic.

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you? Are you seriously arguing that a boss does not dictate what his workers do in terms of work? If God hires Lucifer for the position of Satan ("enemy") so that people will know what evil is and have an icon to symbolize the idea of evil, and henceforth assigns him various evil deeds to accomplish on earth, that's all the control he needs. He works for God as Satan.
And are you seriously hamming up your act for dramatic impact?

If a boss was the controlling power over his employees who are just extensions of him, how would there be such a thing as employee crime -- embezzlement, stealing office supplies, selling proprietary secrets to competitors? If bosses were the controlling power over employees who were just extensions of the bosses, how would it be possible for employees to goof off, sneak out for extended lunches, show up for work drunk or high, get into forbidden relationships in the workplace? If bosses were the controlling power over employees who were just extensions of the bosses, how would it ever happen that an employee demands and gets a raise and/or promotion, or quits at a time that is inconvenient for the boss, or takes some of the company's clients away with him when he quits, to the boss's detriment, or sets up his own business in competition with his former employer, or sues his boss because he doesn't like the way he's being treated?

You asserted that, if Satan is subordinate to God, that means he is an extension of God, under God's control. I gave you examples of how those concepts do not follow each other. I have just given you more detailed examples. Account for these realities if you hope to support your assertion.


... A tumor on you is not subordinate. It does not care what you want. It does not answer to you. It's simply physically attached, in a pseudo-parasitic fashion. I should whip out my analogy police picture on you for this crap.
All you are showing here is that you do not know what the word "subordinate" means. The tumor is subordinate to the organism in the exact same way the liver is. Btw, your liver doesn't care and doesn't answer to you, either, but it wouldn't get far without you.


... Anybody know what the hell he just said? Anyone?
Which of the words did you not understand, since vocabulary seems to be your weak spot here?

I'm okay with doing that, I'm just glad someone's finally answering it! :p

For Satan to qualify as a diety, he must be the avatar of an aspect of Earth. Basically, like Hades was the avatar of death and hell. He ruled over certain things from a supernatural realm that directly affected Earth itself.

In a religion such as Christianity, where it's very polarized by what is holy and what is evil, there's an obvious avatar of good in God - as I said before, in Christianity, he created the universe by himself, so by default he controls pretty much all the aspects as an avatar, but for a religion so polarized by evil, and in this case one that has the face of evil being marked by 'The Beast', 666, AntiChrist, Prince of Lies, ruler of hell with dominion over the damned, it seems logical to assume that this powerful and feared being would be the avatar of evil.

Logical, yes, but again, it's possible that this title, too, is claimed by God if Satan is simply filling an office given to him by his employer, God. If this is so, then God is the avatar of evil by extension, and Satan is just a means and a puppet.

So either Satan is the avatar of evil of his own free will, and is a deity, or God is the avatar of evil, and uses Satan to do his bidding, and Satan is no more a deity than any other angel that works under the guidance of God.


Two choices. Two. Pick one.
Sorry, but both of your choices are too faulty to be acceptible. They are based on too broad assumptions about what a deity is, what the nature of good and evil is, what the theological cosmos of Christianity looks like (apparently as dualistic as Zoroastrianism), and a few other minor issues, including an apparent lack of effort to make up a set of rules that actually follows Christianity as a model (your specific references notwithstanding).

Basically, what you've done here is post a set of rules of your own and ask Christians to define their religious beliefs according to your rules, and you have done this in such a way that they must accept one of YOUR predefined categories for THEIR beliefs to fall into.

I do not see that as asking for an explanation. I see it as trying to impose one.

Basically, what you've done here is post a set of rules of your own and ask Christians to define their religious beliefs according to your rules, and you have done this in such a way that they must accept one of YOUR predefined categories for THEIR beliefs to fall into.

Szanthism...that has a nice ring to it.

Sorry, but both of your choices are too faulty to be acceptible. They are based on too broad assumptions about what a deity is, what the nature of good and evil is, what the theological cosmos of Christianity looks like (apparently as dualistic as Zoroastrianism), and a few other minor issues, including an apparent lack of effort to make up a set of rules that actually follows Christianity as a model (your specific references notwithstanding).

Basically, what you've done here is post a set of rules of your own and ask Christians to define their religious beliefs according to your rules, and you have done this in such a way that they must accept one of YOUR predefined categories for THEIR beliefs to fall into.

I do not see that as asking for an explanation. I see it as trying to impose one.
k, that's what I thought, I sat here and read it twice, trying to figure out how to explain that to him........

Szanthism...that has a nice ring to it.

It does. Let's accept it as defined and add it to the lexicon. Thanks! :)

Szanthism...that has a nice ring to it.Well, anyone can enter a new entry in wikipedia...

And are you seriously hamming up your act for dramatic impact?

No, I really just can't imagine someone being so stupid on purpose.

If a boss was the controlling power over his employees who are just extensions of him, how would there be such a thing as employee crime -- embezzlement, stealing office supplies, selling proprietary secrets to competitors? If bosses were the controlling power over employees who were just extensions of the bosses, how would it be possible for employees to goof off, sneak out for extended lunches, show up for work drunk or high, get into forbidden relationships in the workplace? If bosses were the controlling power over employees who were just extensions of the bosses, how would it ever happen that an employee demands and gets a raise and/or promotion, or quits at a time that is inconvenient for the boss, or takes some of the company's clients away with him when he quits, to the boss's detriment, or sets up his own business in competition with his former employer, or sues his boss because he doesn't like the way he's being treated?

You're clearly not getting it. If you have a job, you work. If you work, you have tasks. You get those tasks from your employer. If you don't do those tasks, you get fired, and they hire someone who can do them.

Sure, while you're at work you can goof off and do random shit - I'm at work right now - thing is, my bosses aren't fucking omnipotent and omniscient. God would know if you were screwing around on youtube when you were supposed to be working.

Not just that, but obviously Satan has no use for money, so what the hell would he be working for? There's nothing he needs - nothing, except to live. If Satan does what God wants, then Satan lives. If he becomes useless, he becomes expendable. Seems like the only logical reason why he would continue to work under God if: A - the rebellion story is literal, and B - Satan has free will. If either A or B are untrue, it's possible God and Satan are friends, or Satan just enjoys his job and wanted to be hired. We kind of have to assume A and B, because the bible just comes right out and tells us these things.

You asserted that, if Satan is subordinate to God, that means he is an extension of God, under God's control. I gave you examples of how those concepts do not follow each other. I have just given you more detailed examples. Account for these realities if you hope to support your assertion.

You've given semantics to how an individual employee is not actually under complete and total power 24/7 of his employer. You also ignore, however, the fact that he still works there, and still has to do his fucking job, regardless. Nothing else matters. As long as you work for someone, you are under their control as much as your job description tells you that you're under their control. If it's your job to process 481W forms for the office, the boss can give you a thousand of those fucking forms to process all at once and demand they be done by a certain time, because it's your job, and he's your boss. It's not usually done, because the person could quit if the boss is a dick, but as I've postulated in the above paragraph, Satan could be working for his life, therefore the alternative to work would not be pleasant.

All you are showing here is that you do not know what the word "subordinate" means. The tumor is subordinate to the organism in the exact same way the liver is. Btw, your liver doesn't care and doesn't answer to you, either, but it wouldn't get far without you.

Your liver most definitely cares about you. Maybe not on a literal level, but it keeps you alive. It's a symbiotic relationship, rather than a parasitic relationship, as with the tumor.

Which of the words did you not understand, since vocabulary seems to be your weak spot here?

Bullshit is my weak spot. I don't speak bullshitanese, I apologize.

k, that's what I thought, I sat here and read it twice, trying to figure out how to explain that to him........
Basically, the choice he gave you is between God is evil or God is not God, as Christianity understands the concept of "God." He phrases it as a question, but by limiting it to a multiple-choice answer, and a biased one at that, he is really telling you, not asking you.

It's not fair, and it's not based on honesty. If he wants to salvage his "question," he should add option (C) Szanth apparently does not understand what he is talking about and maybe should try listening for a change.

And I think you misread FS's original post that started this side debate. He sought to claim that knowledge can only be had about things about which there can be NO unquestionable certainty because they lack empirical content, and he cited the bachelor thing as one of his examples even though it is clearly not a thing without empirical content.

But it is. As an example of "empirical content," we can look at the unicorn. It's a horse with a horn. "How do we know?" We've heard tell from others, or seen drawings composed from imagination. The words from others and the drawings, themselves, have "empirical content" because they are brought to us courtesy of sensation. The unicorn was not. It has no content, it is an image, with questionable certainty. We've seen horses, and we've seen horns, but we've never seen the horse with a horn. The image of the unicorn is assembled, sans content, from what bits that we know, bits that do have content.

A bachelor is an "unmarried man." The "man" bit has content, the "unmarried" bit does not. It's an image, unless you can demonstrate how the concept "marriage" is brought to us through the senses.

Yes, I know that. That is the definition of "empiricism." I am not arguing empiricism here. I am using the adjective "empirical" to describe things which have some kind of physical presence in the world -- even if it is only in the form of physical documentation, such as marital status -- and if you read all my posts throughout the thread, you should see that I am using it in reference to ONE KIND of thing about which there can be knowledge within the requirements of what constitutes "knowledge," which I also defined earlier.
But FS is arguing empiricism here. He's addressing epistemology. He is trying to make a point, and everyone, it seems, keeps trying to steer his points back to ontology, where frankly they don't belong.

I'll look for your earlier posts.

Basically, the choice he gave you is between God is evil or God is not God, as Christianity understands the concept of "God." He phrases it as a question, but by limiting it to a multiple-choice answer, and a biased one at that, he is really telling you, not asking you.

It's not fair, and it's not based on honesty. If he wants to salvage his "question," he should add option (C) Szanth apparently does not understand what he is talking about and maybe should try listening for a change.

no, I mean I get that. It's like when my kid tries to do it.

"can I go to Amy's?"
"no"
"why?"
"you didn't finish your chores"
"you hate me!"
"no, I don't"
"if you loved me you would let me go to Amy's and you aren't letting me go, so you hate me"

it's a false choice.

No, I really just can't imagine someone being so stupid on purpose.
Yet I don't have to imagine someone persisting in being as wrong as you are. I can see you demonstrating it.

You're clearly not getting it. If you have a job, you work. If you work, you have tasks. You get those tasks from your employer. If you don't do those tasks, you get fired, and they hire someone who can do them.

Sure, while you're at work you can goof off and do random shit - I'm at work right now - thing is, my bosses aren't fucking omnipotent and omniscient.
So by acknowledging that my boss has no power to stop me doing things he doesn't want me to because they are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, you acknowledge that just because I am subordinate to them, that does not mean they control me.

So you acknowledge that I am right. High time.

God would know if you were screwing around on youtube when you were supposed to be working.
Not the point. Knowledge of a thing =/= control over a thing, either.

My bosses can easily see me internet shopping or yakking on the phone with my friends during the work day. And they may even have the power to fire me for it. But they have no power to prevent me from doing it. God knowing what Satan is doing does not imply that he must be able to stop Satan from doing it, since you do not know the full arrangement between God and Satan, or the full natures of either God or Satan. So you do not know what God knows or doesn't know, or why he takes action or does not take action.

Not just that, but obviously Satan has no use for money, so what the hell would he be working for? There's nothing he needs - nothing, except to live. If Satan does what God wants, then Satan lives. If he becomes useless, he becomes expendable. Seems like the only logical reason why he would continue to work under God if: A - the rebellion story is literal, and B - Satan has free will. If either A or B are untrue, it's possible God and Satan are friends, or Satan just enjoys his job and wanted to be hired. We kind of have to assume A and B, because the bible just comes right out and tells us these things.
Pure, unadulterated speculation based on nothing at all, not even the Bible. In other words, fantasy. Your fantasy.

You've given semantics to how an individual employee is not actually under complete and total power 24/7 of his employer.
That is not semantics. It is a fact, unless the worker is on 24-hour call or is a slave.

You also ignore, however, the fact that he still works there, and still has to do his fucking job, regardless. Nothing else matters.
Plenty of other things matter, such as:

As long as you work for someone, you are under their control as much as your job description tells you that you're under their control. If it's your job to process 481W forms for the office, the boss can give you a thousand of those fucking forms to process all at once and demand they be done by a certain time, because it's your job, and he's your boss. It's not usually done, because the person could quit if the boss is a dick,
In other words, the boss does not control the employee. The employee does his job as part of an agreement, not because he is under the control of someone else. The agreement is one of equivalent exchange, N work for Y money, and the fact that it is an agreement and not a one-sided control issue is proven by cases in which the employer fails to deliver on his side of the bargain and the controlling power switches into the hands of the employee tout-fucking-suite.

but as I've postulated in the above paragraph, Satan could be working for his life, therefore the alternative to work would not be pleasant.
More accurate to say, as you speculated. I will not accept your faulty argument, made in support of a faulty assertion, just because you "back it up" with even more faulty speculations.


Your liver most definitely cares about you. Maybe not on a literal level, but it keeps you alive. It's a symbiotic relationship, rather than a parasitic relationship, as with the tumor.
Tumors keep us alive?

EDIT: I know that's not what you were saying. I was being sarcastic. But if you assert that our livers care about us, kindly provide some statements from livers to support that.


Bullshit is my weak spot. I don't speak bullshitanese, I apologize.
Nonsense. You're fluent in it.

Sorry, but both of your choices are too faulty to be acceptible. They are based on too broad assumptions about what a deity is, what the nature of good and evil is, what the theological cosmos of Christianity looks like (apparently as dualistic as Zoroastrianism), and a few other minor issues, including an apparent lack of effort to make up a set of rules that actually follows Christianity as a model (your specific references notwithstanding).

Broad assumptions? It's right there in the damned definition, which, yet again, I'm forced to copy/paste:

deity

noun
any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force


Personification of a force. Personification: the state of being an avatar of - a force: an aspect of the universe. An avatar of an aspect of the universe.

If Satan is the personification of evil, then he is, *magic drumroll music* a fucking deity. Right there, definition, not broad at all.

I don't see how it's very complicated. Either Satan is or is not the personification of evil. Is he or isn't he. Verrrry simple stuff here. You just don't want to give an answer because of the ramifications of either one. It's not that the question is worded with bias, it's that you can't answer it. I was hoping Smunk would be above that sort of thing.

Basically, what you've done here is post a set of rules of your own and ask Christians to define their religious beliefs according to your rules, and you have done this in such a way that they must accept one of YOUR predefined categories for THEIR beliefs to fall into.

No. The question is very simple: is he, or is he not, the personification of evil. I'm not giving any rules with this simple question. Afterward, having gotten the answer, I will try to make sense of it in accordance with other certain things about the religion, but with this simple question I just want a yes or no, and it's apparently just much too hard.

I do not see that as asking for an explanation. I see it as trying to impose one.

And which one am I imposing? The yes or the no? Do you even know?

Basically, the choice he gave you is between God is evil or God is not God, as Christianity understands the concept of "God." He phrases it as a question, but by limiting it to a multiple-choice answer, and a biased one at that, he is really telling you, not asking you.

No. Again, no. God, no. You make my head hurt with how wrong you are all the time.

If God is the personification of evil, that does not make him evil - he is just as much everything else in the universe as he is that, because he's the personification of good and all the other things as well.

Also, if Satan is a deity, God is still God. God is still the creator - he's still the supreme being. Deity status does nothing to dethrone God from his high and mighty mountain of righteousness, it simply entails that Christianity has TWO deities - one named God, the other named Satan. Satan, being the far less powerful of the two, but still meeting the requirements for deity status.

It's not fair, and it's not based on honesty. If he wants to salvage his "question," he should add option (C) Szanth apparently does not understand what he is talking about and maybe should try listening for a change.

This is not multiple choice, this is yes or no, true or false, simple shit. God damnit.

But it is. As an example of "empirical content," we can look at the unicorn. It's a horse with a horn. "How do we know?" We've heard tell from others, or seen drawings composed from imagination. The words from others and the drawings, themselves, have "empirical content" because they are brought to us courtesy of sensation. The unicorn was not. It has no content, it is an image, with questionable certainty. We've seen horses, and we've seen horns, but we've never seen the horse with a horn. The image of the unicorn is assembled, sans content, from what bits that we know, bits that do have content.

A bachelor is an "unmarried man." The "man" bit has content, the "unmarried" bit does not. It's an image, unless you can demonstrate how the concept "marriage" is brought to us through the senses.


But FS is arguing empiricism here. He's addressing epistemology. He is trying to make a point, and everyone, it seems, keeps trying to steer his points back to ontology, where frankly they don't belong.

I'll look for your earlier posts.

Please do, because the answers to most of the points you try to make here are in them, including the part about the empirical content of the legal concept of marital status.

You may want to read the rest of the thread as well, since it also contains arguments by others against what you are doing in your first paragraph about the unicorn.

You assert that pictures of unicorns have no empirical content because they are only pictures. You miss the fact that, of course, pictures have empirical content, because the pictures physically exist. Their empirical content is about what they are made of and about themselves, even if it is not about their subject matter. So to say that an image has no empirical content is faulty if you do not specify what kind of empirical content you are looking for.

Since we can conclude by the context you bring it up in, that you mean that pictures of unicorns contain no empirical content about unicorns, well, no shit. Whoever said they did or would? In fact, I and others have long been arguing that statements about supernatural things in fact give us no real knowledge about those supernatural things, so debunking the content of the statements does not, by extension, debunk the supernatural thing they were about.

In other words, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. I really can't believe I had to type those words after all these pages, after all the times in this thread that others have already typed them. You really should try reading the thread.

fucking snip

Oh my dear god. If I were Christian I'd be praying for you right now, because you worry me on a severe level if what you're telling me is serious.

You don't understand the concept of a job. You're really telling me this. You're telling me that just because someone has a job and is controlled in the context of that job, they can still do whatever they want and keep their job. You expect me to believe that if Satan were working for God, and God was unhappy with his work, that Satan would not be fired or dealt with at all.

You really believe that?

Holy fucking shit.

You assert that pictures of unicorns have no empirical content because they are only pictures. You miss the fact that, of course, pictures have empirical content, because the pictures physically exist.
But the empirical content of the picture isn't at issue.

Broad assumptions? It's right there in the damned definition, which, yet again, I'm forced to copy/paste:

deity

noun
any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force


Personification of a force. Personification: the state of being an avatar of - a force: an aspect of the universe. An avatar of an aspect of the universe.

If Satan is the personification of evil, then he is, *magic drumroll music* a fucking deity. Right there, definition, not broad at all.

I don't see how it's very complicated. Either Satan is or is not the personification of evil. Is he or isn't he. Verrrry simple stuff here. You just don't want to give an answer because of the ramifications of either one. It's not that the question is worded with bias, it's that you can't answer it. I was hoping Smunk would be above that sort of thing.
A) I don't have to give an answer because it's not my religion. I do not have to account for the beliefs of any religion other than my own, and mine does not include this God/Satan issue.

B) If you would bother to follow any argument other than your own, you would know that I am attacking the form of your argument, not its content. Since I do not care whether Satan is a deity or not, I do not concern myself with that question. What I care about is your underhanded manner of trying to manipulate Christians like Smunkee into submitting to your view of their religion rather than letting them be the experts in what they believe.

C) This entire thread is like the Abbott and Costello "Who's on First?" routine in which no matter what is said, or where it goes, we always come back to "I don't know / Third base!"

The definition of "deity" is not and has never been in question. The only matters for debate have been whether that word can be used in this or that context without changing the definition, and whether the word can be left out of a context legitimately, and whether a context can be subjective and still use the word as defined, non-subjectively.

You seem to be maintaining that, if the word can be made to fit a certain concept then that's what the concept must be. So, if Satan can be described in a way that fits the definition of "deity" then he must be a deity. If you cannot see the flaw in such an argument, then you are either very blind or very willful, especially considering how many times it has been clearly explained to you.

No. The question is very simple: is he, or is he not, the personification of evil. I'm not giving any rules with this simple question. Afterward, having gotten the answer, I will try to make sense of it in accordance with other certain things about the religion, but with this simple question I just want a yes or no, and it's apparently just much too hard.
Your bias is obvious in that you are equating "personification of evil" with "deity of evil." So if you get the answer "yes," then you will conclude that Satan is therefore a deity. But as has already been covered numerous times in this thread, context is everything, and even though personification is part of the definition of deity, it does not follow that in the context of Christianity, being the personification of something will necesarily make one the deity of that thing. You cannot ignore that, no matter how hard you try. For instance, we can say that, according to the Bible, Job is the personification of patience. Does that make him the god of patience? In another context, we might say that George Washington is the personification of the national ideals of the USA. Does that make him the god of that nation or those ideals? Obviously not. Why? Because no one worships George Washington, and your precious definition aside, there is a strong subjective quality to what makes a deity. People have to say so, for the title to apply.

And which one am I imposing? The yes or the no? Do you even know?


No. Again, no. God, no. You make my head hurt with how wrong you are all the time.

If God is the personification of evil, that does not make him evil - he is just as much everything else in the universe as he is that, because he's the personification of good and all the other things as well.

Also, if Satan is a deity, God is still God. God is still the creator - he's still the supreme being. Deity status does nothing to dethrone God from his high and mighty mountain of righteousness, it simply entails that Christianity has TWO deities - one named God, the other named Satan. Satan, being the far less powerful of the two, but still meeting the requirements for deity status.
And now you are just backpedaling from your own position.

It is clear that you have been trying to undermine Christians' assertions about the nature of their own religion by presenting a false choice: Their god is either this or that, according to Szanth. He is either not the God they claim he is, or he is the personification of evil, which also means he is not the God they claim he is. So no matter which they choose, you still get to claim that what they say about their god is false. But you can only pull off this trick if you pressure them into letting you apply your standards to their beliefs, and no one is being taken in.

Now trying to claim that declaring Christianity to be polytheistic, regardless of what Christians say about it, will have no effect on the status of the Christian God within Christianity is a nonsensical ploy, which again, no one is fooled by.

A) It most certainly would change his status. He cannot be The One God if there are more gods.

B) It does not change the fact that you are trying to tell Christians what they believe in direct contradiction of what they say they believe.

C) It does not change the fact that I will not stand by and let you get away with that, if I can call you on it.

As to what is the actual nature of Satan, that question has been answered many, many times by many Christians in this thread so far. Ignoring them won't make them go away, either.

This is not multiple choice, this is yes or no, true or false, simple shit.
Simple bullshit. A false choice is still false, no matter how simple you make it.

God damnit.
Which one?

Oh my dear god. If I were Christian I'd be praying for you right now, because you worry me on a severe level if what you're telling me is serious.

You don't understand the concept of a job. You're really telling me this. You're telling me that just because someone has a job and is controlled in the context of that job, they can still do whatever they want and keep their job. You expect me to believe that if Satan were working for God, and God was unhappy with his work, that Satan would not be fired or dealt with at all.

You really believe that?

Holy fucking shit.
And this post implies two things about you:

1) It implies that you lack the ability to read long posts. Perhaps you have ADD or perhaps you simply lack skills in reading. Go back and look at my "fucking snip" and you will see the words "they may even have the power to fire me for it" followed by they can't "prevent me from doing it." So, obviously, I do not think you can do whatever you like on the job and still keep your job, but a consequence to an action is not the same as a preventative against that action. If it were, then the fact that murder is punished would mean that no one would ever commit murder. And yet. So your baseless speculation that, if Satan does not go about tempting his quota of souls per week, he might lose his job, in no way proves that Satan is an extension of God, under God's control.

2) It implies that either (a) you have never held a job, or (b) that you are dick of a boss, or (c) that you are a hapless doormat of an employee. My description of how jobs work is based on US labor law and practice. I know this because I have had several dick bosses, and have had to protect my rights under the law, which made it necessary for me to know what those rights are. If you are an American, you may want to familiarize yourself with these, for your own benefit. It is true, that I do not have the right to keep my job if I do not do it, but I also do not have the right to keep it even if I do do it. Also, I do not have the obligation to keep it even if my boss does what he's supposed to do. None of that puts either of us in control of the other. It only gives us the ability to carry out the consequences of the other's default on our mutual agreement.

So, it may be hard for you, but you should read the whole of your opponent's post before you jump at trying to attack them for saying something they did not say, and basing that attack on bad information.

But the empirical content of the picture isn't at issue.

Perhaps not, but the accuracy of language used in the context of this debate is, and I maintain that to make statements such as "this or that lacks empirical content", when that statement is clearly false, just makes the arguer look foolish, as if he is trying to subjectify (if you will) the concepts of "empirical," "knowledge," "to know," etc., in a debate in which that same person is criticizing others for arguing in favor of the subjective nature of such concepts as "god." FS claimed he could make a logical argument about the existence/non-existence of God, yet he insists on limiting his jargon to a point where the words can only mean what he wants them to mean in this particular context. And in doing that, he also makes an obvious mistake that undermines even this questionable tactic by making him look silly.

Now as to your point, tell me how the lack of evidence that the picture labeled "Unicorn" is an accurate depiction of a real creature proves that the creature is not real. I remind you that early bestiaries were full of pictures of elephants and giraffes, etc., that did not match what the actual creatures looked like and had explanatory captions that were completely wrong, but that did not mean that there was no such thing as an elephant or a giraffe. I also remind you that there may be no such creature as a kraken, based on the explicit descriptions of what a kraken is and does, but there most certainly is such a thing as a giant squid, which bears a striking resemblance to a kraken. Based on that evidence, what should we conclude: that there is no kraken, or that the kraken was really a giant squid, for which early observers filled in the gaps in their knowledge with speculation?

As has been said numerous times, you/us being wrong about a thing does not prove that the thing does not exist.

might as well say: "God exists because he exists."
What? Ok...
Come on, "God is beyond our knowledge?" Well people do one hell of a job interpreting what he does and what he wants.
That's because it's not actually about him. ;)

Perhaps not, but the accuracy of language used in the context of this debate is, and I maintain that to make statements such as "this or that lacks empirical content", when that statement is clearly false, just makes the arguer look foolish, as if he is trying to subjectify (if you will) the concepts of "empirical," "knowledge," "to know," etc., in a debate in which that same person is criticizing others for arguing in favor of the subjective nature of such concepts as "god."
It's my opinion, that the issue of God(s) is more properly approached from a standpoint of epistomology (one in which, incidentally, the statement about lacking empirical content is clearly applicable). Hence I recognize where FS is coming from and the context for the arguments he tried to make, that I was defending.

(Up to page 27 in my reading. Haven't encountered the start of the debate yet, although I have encountered numerous incidents of FS with an epistemic approach to replies.)

Now as to your point, tell me how the lack of evidence that the picture labeled "Unicorn" is an accurate depiction of a real creature proves that the creature is not real.
I claimed nothing about "proof," nor that evidence was lacking, nor that the picture is an accurate or inaccurate depiction, so I cannot defend the position you ask me to; I'm sorry.

The argument is that empirical evidence does not lack content, whereas ideal rational evidence does.

Deity. We're using 'deity'. There is not only one deity in c/j/i, but there is just one deity NAMED god.
Two, evidently. Genesis 1 names Elohim and Genesis 2 and 3 name Yahweh. Genesis 1 is the mythology of Israel, and Genesis 2 and 3 come from the myths of the people of Judah.

Two, evidently. Genesis 1 names Elohim and Genesis 2 and 3 name Yahweh. Genesis 1 is the mythology of Israel, and Genesis 2 and 3 come from the myths of the people of Judah.

possible same God, two names?

Satan, in Christianity, is no more of a god than I am.

*swideways look*
Skeptic? Or closet mystic?

:)

possible same God, two names?

Certainly; two mythologies, two images. *nod*

You said "pointless." I see you meant "irrelevant."

Dim recollection indicates that what I actually said was pointless was the dispute... as spending time on it would be, if it were irrelevant to the discussion.

And yet I found it irrelevant to the argument I was making. I thought it more relevant to Jocabia's arguments.

Yes, my point was relevant to Jocabia's arguments. That's why it was directed at him.

I'm not sure why you wanted to argue with something that you thought was irrelevant to your argument.

So, anyone with any ability to read a dictionary, must see that changing the color of the horse does not stop it from being a horse,

But it does stop it from being a black horse.

If you recall, the example I gave was "all black horses are black." Not "horses are black."

This is indeed the equivalent of "all bachelors are unmarried"... because "all bachelors are unmarried" means "all unmarried men are unmarried."

(Or rather, there is actually a difference, because in one case we must consider the meaning of the word (bachelor) and in the other we need merely recognize the repetition of the term--but the point about the lack of necessity for empirical verification stands.)

and simply claim that I'm starting from 'no position'

In fact, I claimed the exact opposite.

Certainly; two mythologies, two images. *nod*

each name of God in the Bible means a different thing, they all describe the same God. Nobody knows God's real name. When they were talking about God they would use different names to describe different qualities, so you get Adonai meaning master, and elohim meaning strong, El Shaddi meaning almighty, and my favorite Jehovah-Jireh, God will provide.

ok. fit haile selassee, the god of rastafarianism, into "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"

selasee was the emperor of ethiopia and a christian. he had no supernatural powers. he didnt consider himself a god. you could theoretically dig up his remains and show that he had completely human dna.

the definition fails.

Haile Selassie I is God ("Jah") incarnate to the Rastas, same as Jesus is to Christians. His death "changed nothing, except that their God was no longer physically present." (link (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/rast.html))

Their relationship between man and God (whether imaged in Selassie or the Most High) is beautifully captured in the other name they have for God: "I and I".

Yes, they can make their own definitions. They can say deity means fruit pie - doesn't mean they'll be any less wrong for saying so.


For the sake of this specific topic, deity and god are essentially the same in that they can be used interchangeably when deciding whether or not a religion is polytheistic. I.E. If God and Satan are both deities, or if they're both gods, then christianity is polytheistic.

Deity is also useful in this situation, in that it isn't subject to the individual religion to decide whether or not a figure in their faith is a deity. It's just simply, it is or it isn't, based on the information we have about such a figure. So while the religion is allowed to call a pile of rocks their god, but they don't actually attribute it with any powers such as "This pile of rocks created the universe" or "This pile of rocks controls the sea" or anything like that, then it's not a deity, but it's still technically their god - it's their point of worship, but by definition, it's not a deity.

Though in that situation, it's tricky - are they still monotheistic if they don't have ANY deity at all? If they worship a pile of rocks simply because it's a pile of rocks, and has no special or supernatural attributes to it, is it still monotheism?

I suppose yes and no - yes, because they worship it regardless - and no, because it's not a deity.

But there would have to be SOME sort of reason for their worship for this specific pile of rocks, otherwise I could just set up another pile of rocks and call their attention to it - course, they could claim that my pile of rocks was a false pile of rocks and ignore it completely, but it just seems like they would have to have some reason, such as "This pile of rocks is shinier than any other pile of rocks", in which case it could very well be a deity, because the pile of rocks could be the avatar of the aspect of being shiny. As lame as it sounds, it would qualify.


But yes, that's the difference and similarity of 'god' and 'deity'. If you're attempting to decide objectively whether or not a religion is polytheistic, you must use 'deity' as a point of reference.

Must we? Would you like a serious response to the thread topic, or would you prefer we stick to the definitions as you've outlined them?

ok. fit haile selassee, the god of rastafarianism, into "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"

selasee was the emperor of ethiopia and a christian. he had no supernatural powers. he didnt consider himself a god. you could theoretically dig up his remains and show that he had completely human dna.

the definition fails.the whereabouts of Selassie's remains is unknown. some rastafarians do in fact believe that he had supernatural powers. (while i think he was a media whore and a failing ruler)
and btw digging up Jesu remains would also show that he had completely human dna. dna is no useful evidence when it comes to determining divinity.

No, I don't know of anything that the virgin Mary qualifies as. She's not a deity because she's not the avatar of anything.

Tell me what the Archangels could be the avatars of that God isn't already the avatar of. Please.

The only two figures in christianity that can possibly be avatars are God and Satan.

Is an avatar a god/deity?

God is a singular entity, which can take many different forms.

Satan is an angel - he is not a god, but he would like to think himself one.


You'd think this would be a simple concept to grasp. But I shouldn't really be surprised how hard it seems to be for some to grasp.

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."

To some, they are compatible. There is growing a cross-section of Christianity that recognizes God as akin to the Dainichi (http://www.answers.com/Dainichi) and the "spirit" of all things in the universe as akin to kami. Judaism has a similar albeit larger cross-section. These beliefs are collectively known in the West as mysticism (or sometimes neo-mysticism).
Edit: link (http://members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/)

And I think you misread FS's original post that started this side debate. He sought to claim that knowledge can only be had about things about which there can be NO unquestionable certainty because they lack empirical content

i did?

Two, evidently. Genesis 1 names Elohim and Genesis 2 and 3 name Yahweh. Genesis 1 is the mythology of Israel, and Genesis 2 and 3 come from the myths of the people of Judah.

Interesting.

Must we? Would you like a serious response to the thread topic, or would you prefer we stick to the definitions as you've outlined them?

We've been over this many times - using the word "god" gets confusing, and people insist there is only one God while missing the entire point about there being another god, simply because of the words being used. Deity is simply better for the situation.

Is an avatar a god/deity?

In the context of a religion, yes. It's a being that entirely controls the aspect of something as we see it on Earth, for example: if Trevor happens to be the avatar of skateboarding, that would entail that he controls or has a great effect on the amount of skateboarding being done on Earth at any one time, as well as controlling how popular it becomes simply by will. He controls every aspect of skateboarding by wishing it, because it is the very fiber of his being and he has a supernatural mastery over it entirely. That's the general definition - if you get deeper and have to go into the dogma of "Well what if Trevor's killed while in human form, would skateboarding die out or would there be a new avatar born?" and other crap like that, it gets into specifics that only individual religions can dictate, and becomes far too unrelated to the original definition to matter in this case.

Same goes for fire, weather, creation, death, hell, heaven, water, earth, the hearth, metalworking, etc, etc.

Aspects of the universe as we know it, mostly limited to that of Earth or from the perception of Earth.

using the word "god" gets confusing,
Only if you don't know what it means.

...and people insist there is only one God while missing the entire point about there being another god, simply because of the words being used. Deity is simply better for the situation.


In the context of a religion, yes. It's a being that entirely controls the aspect of something as we see it on Earth, for example: if Trevor happens to be the avatar of skateboarding, that would entail that he controls or has a great effect on the amount of skateboarding being done on Earth at any one time, as well as controlling how popular it becomes simply by will. He controls every aspect of skateboarding by wishing it, because it is the very fiber of his being and he has a supernatural mastery over it entirely. That's the general definition - if you get deeper and have to go into the dogma of "Well what if Trevor's killed while in human form, would skateboarding die out or would there be a new avatar born?" and other crap like that, it gets into specifics that only individual religions can dictate, and becomes far too unrelated to the original definition to matter in this case.

Same goes for fire, weather, creation, death, hell, heaven, water, earth, the hearth, metalworking, etc, etc.

Aspects of the universe as we know it, mostly limited to that of Earth or from the perception of Earth.
What you are referring to as "god" then is an image of God. The One God in the context of one's mythology will often have multiple images or avatars. And from what I've seen, yes, the avatar is often referred to as "the God or Goddess" rather than the One, but that's not always the case. There is much delightful diversity amongst religions.

In the context of an image or avatar of God, the correct (and only) answer to the question you posed about God or Satan is, "Yes."

Only if you don't know what it means.

And some don't. Therefore, for their sake, it's best to use easier terms.

What you are referring to as "god" then is an image of God. The One God in the context of one's mythology will often have multiple images or avatars. And from what I've seen, yes, the avatar is often referred to as "the God or Goddess" rather than the One, but that's not always the case. There is much delightful diversity amongst religions.

So you're saying that Satan is but the one particular image of God used for evil? Just making sure before I give a hurrah that someone else answered my question.

But this is mostly only true for the c/j/i mythology, and maybe a few others (Hindi?). For the Greek pantheon, there is no One God for them to be images of.

In the context of an image or avatar of God, the correct (and only) answer to the question you posed about God or Satan is, "Yes."

Yes, what? Yes, Satan is an image of God and does not exist as a separate entity, therefore God is the avatar of evil while manifesting in such an image?

the whereabouts of Selassie's remains is unknown. some rastafarians do in fact believe that he had supernatural powers. (while i think he was a media whore and a failing ruler)
and btw digging up Jesu remains would also show that he had completely human dna. dna is no useful evidence when it comes to determining divinity.

Althouhg it may be worth to note that Selassie hims self denied any sort of divinty for himself and took pains to distance himself from the Rastaferian movement.

Althouhg it may be worth to note that Selassie hims self denied any sort of divinty for himself and took pains to distance himself from the Rastaferian movement.

Yeah, the rastafarians seem to have just smoked way too much weed and been really high when they said some random asshole was the next Christ.

Althouhg it may be worth to note that Selassie hims self denied any sort of divinty for himself and took pains to distance himself from the Rastaferian movement.iirr selassie did not respond to the claims on his divinity by the movement at all. and he did not in fact distance himself from the rastafarian movement, although he maybe was not too happy about it or about anything that came out of the garvey corner.

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.

I like that explanation very much. And it makes it easy to see the cultural similarity between appeals to the Saints and ancestor worship.

...ritualized propitiation and invocation of dead kin. Ancestor worship is based on the belief that the spirits of the dead continue to dwell... and have the power to influence the fortune and fate of the living.
~answers.com

its an odd view of heaven but some people need to think of it as a more human place than others do.oh, for most ancient beliefs "heaven" was a place on earth, a location a person could actually travel to. back then the gods where not thought to be as remote and transcendent as the biblical concept of god renders its god.

For Satan to qualify as a diety, he must be the avatar of an aspect of Earth... In a religion such as Christianity, where it's very polarized by what is holy and what is evil, there's an obvious avatar of good in God - as I said before, in Christianity, he created the universe by himself, so by default he controls pretty much all the aspects as an avatar, but for a religion so polarized by evil, and in this case one that has the face of evil... it seems logical to assume that this powerful and feared being would be the avatar of evil.
I think that if God is understood (properly) as the One ineffable creator of all things, and we acknowledge that evil exists, God could not have but, through us, created that "evil." Both "evil" and "Earth" are symbols for what Satan "rules," which is the world around us, the world we live in, the world of judgments and moral choices, good and bad, right and wrong. Our lives, as part of the world are part of the whole "evil" thing.

I agree that if Satan is seen as an avatar of anything, it is of our Earthly existence.

So you're saying that Satan is but the one particular image of God used for evil? Just making sure before I give a hurrah that someone else answered my question.

But this is mostly only true for the c/j/i mythology, and maybe a few others (Hindi?). For the Greek pantheon, there is no One God for them to be images of.

Yes, what? Yes, Satan is an image of God and does not exist as a separate entity, therefore God is the avatar of evil while manifesting in such an image?
Satan is no more an image of God than I am *looks sideways at Remote Observer again*. And no less... In the "c/j/i" myths, though, Yahweh is the only avatar used to give a face to the One God, which is what lends the term "monotheistic" to the religion. The ineffable One, with one avatar. Satan is an image of Earthly existence, which God created.

I declare "yes" as my answer because it seems to me that if you are asking if either of the avatars represent "evil," then as I said earlier they both can in the context of their respective mythologies. God can be the ineffable creator, or the creator as its creation, which is the world we live in, the Earthly existence.

The Greeks, too, had their Dionysian mystics who understood the "One God" accessible only by going beyond the limitations of mind (they did it in ecstasy). The ineffable is the mystery in the "Mystery religions."

Yeah, the rastafarians seem to have just smoked way too much weed and been really high when they said some random asshole was the next Christ.

Or perhaps they just employed similar symbolism to Christianity.

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.
Throw out the astrology example, for better, works every time.

Religion, next to greed, is one of the two most used reasons to go to war.
Religion has been used as an excuse to cause problems, go to war, and persecute others that are different.
Personally, as the president of the Armed Republik of the Crimson Collective, i believe with all my heart and imperial wisdom, that RELIGION IS A CRUTCH FOR THE WEAK MINDED, NEEDY, AND INSECURE.
We, in the Crimson Collective have outlawed religion,and any practice of it can result in Exile from the Republik.
There is no God or Devil. Only Man, and the actions that men undertake.

I think that if God is understood (properly) as the One ineffable creator of all things, and we acknowledge that evil exists, God could not have but, through us, created that "evil." Both "evil" and "Earth" are symbols for what Satan "rules," which is the world around us, the world we live in, the world of judgments and moral choices, good and bad, right and wrong. Our lives, as part of the world are part of the whole "evil" thing.

Alright, so Satan rules over the Earth? It's weird that God would've given him that status if Satan really did attempt to overthrow God in heaven. Seems more like a reward than anything else.

I agree that if Satan is seen as an avatar of anything, it is of our Earthly existence.

All of it, though? Like, God's just the avatar of creation, and Satan is the avatar of everything else? Never heard that one before.

Satan is no more an image of God than I am *looks sideways at Remote Observer again*. And no less... In the "c/j/i" myths, though, Yahweh is the only avatar used to give a face to the One God, which is what lends the term "monotheistic" to the religion. The ineffable One, with one avatar. Satan is an image of Earthly existence, which God created.

Well they call him the One True God - emphasis on True. Truth is subjective, especially when speaking in religious context.

Regardless of what they call him, if Satan qualifies for deity status because of the situation the religion puts him in, then it's polytheistic. So far, though, I think most of those who've answered have suggested that Satan isn't enough of an individual being to have that office, seeing as how he simply does the tasks assigned to him by God.

I declare "yes" as my answer because it seems to me that if you are asking if either of the avatars represent "evil," then as I said earlier they both can in the context of their respective mythologies. God can be the ineffable creator, or the creator as its creation, which is the world we live in, the Earthly existence.

So again: God = avatar of creation, while Satan = avatar of everything else?

The Greeks, too, had their Dionysian mystics who understood the "One God" accessible only by going beyond the limitations of mind (they did it in ecstasy). The ineffable is the mystery in the "Mystery religions."

Wasn't Dionysis the god of wine? I remember lots of jokes with him at the butt end, with all his followers just getting drunk and fucking all the time. They had lots of gods, though, so I could be getting mixed up.

Or perhaps they just employed similar symbolism to Christianity.

I don't see how picking a random person and insisting that he's somehow the incarnation of Christ is symbolism, especially when the person hasn't shown any signs of being such, as well as having possibly attempted to distance himself from such claims in life.

Alright, so Satan rules over the Earth? It's weird that God would've given him that status if Satan really did attempt to overthrow God in heaven. Seems more like a reward than anything else.
God, in particular, didn't give him status; we, as our aspect of God, did. We (life-forms) are co-creators of the creation.

Without us, it's just a bunch of rocks (minerals, matter/energy) void of meaningfulness. Life gives things meaning, like "weird." Things are "weird" only to you (me, us).

Satan as the "snake" is a metaphor. "Earth" is a metaphor. "Overthrow in Heaven" is a metaphor. Pretty pictures. Images. It's myth, words for things that are of the ineffable, to communicate ideas of things beyond our conscious grasp.

All of it, though?
Every bit of it.

It's like Dr. Pepper. I'm a bit, he's a bit, she's a bit, it's a bit ...wouldn't you like to be a bit, too?

Like, God's just the avatar of creation, and Satan is the avatar of everything else? Never heard that one before.
God is everything, and nothing. God's avatar is the avatar of creation. Our Earthly existence is a part of, and the whole of, that creation.

To be clear, this is immanent creation. To grasp it you have to discard the idea that God operates in time, i.e. that creation "happened" a few-whatever years ago, or is "continuing" on a time-line. God is allocated to eternity, which is part of the ineffable --it has no beginning and no end. Eternity is "now," this moment of existence that, in the context of a "time-line," doesn't exist (only past and future exist there). Creation is now.

Well they call him the One True God - emphasis on True. Truth is subjective, especially when speaking in religious context.
In a sense, objective reality is subjective, too --we are the ones who define what is "out there." There is no "out there" without an "in here" to contrast it by. And we define what is "true" to us.

The "True" in terms of the One God refers to a perspective, and all perspectives are ours (subjective and objective are the nominal physical perspectives that have a corresponding metaphor for conscious/mental existence; there is a third that that allows for one to have a perspective on both subjects and objects. I call it a "spiritual" perspective; others call it the "true" perspective.)

Regardless of what they call him, if Satan qualifies for deity status because of the situation the religion puts him in, then it's polytheistic. So far, though, I think most of those who've answered have suggested that Satan isn't enough of an individual being to have that office, seeing as how he simply does the tasks assigned to him by God.
Well, then, you technically qualify as a diety, too, in this polytheistic religion. Congratulations! The "situation the religion puts you in" (whether you participate or not) is co-creator of the universe.

Sorry; I get that you'd rather discuss the mytholgical imagery in the context of the myths. It's just so easy to take it a bit too far, to concretize it as if real, if you don't first define what the imagery symbolizes and work within the meanings instead of the images.

So again: God = avatar of creation, while Satan = avatar of everything else?
Yes, in my understanding.

Wasn't Dionysis the god of wine? I remember lots of jokes with him at the butt end, with all his followers just getting drunk and fucking all the time. They had lots of gods, though, so I could be getting mixed up.
Wine, dance, ecstacy, yup... sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll... hippies and punks have been dissed since the beginning of time. :D

I don't see how picking a random person and insisting that he's somehow the incarnation of Christ is symbolism, especially when the person hasn't shown any signs of being such, as well as having possibly attempted to distance himself from such claims in life.
He was hardly random. He fulfilled prophecy.

God, in particular, didn't give him status; we, as our aspect of God, did. We (life-forms) are co-creators of the creation.

Haven't seen that in any bible. :p

Without us, it's just a bunch of rocks (minerals, matter/energy) void of meaningfulness. Life gives things meaning, like "weird." Things are "weird" only to you (me, us).

The Christian doctrine, Catholic in particular, would have you believe that it's the opposite - without God, it's just a bunch of rocks and pointlessness and empty existence.

Satan as the "snake" is a metaphor. "Earth" is a metaphor. "Overthrow in Heaven" is a metaphor. Pretty pictures. Images. It's myth, words for things that are of the ineffable, to communicate ideas of things beyond our conscious grasp.

I'm kind of arguing this point on the assumption that the Christian faith is correct. If we don't do that, then the debate becomes about something else entirely.

Every bit of it.

It's like Dr. Pepper. I'm a bit, he's a bit, she's a bit, it's a bit ...wouldn't you like to be a bit, too?

I'm more a Mr. Pibb guy. =D

God is everything, and nothing. God's avatar is the avatar of creation. Our Earthly existence is a part of, and the whole of, that creation.

Again - this is more existentialist deism than it is Christianity.

To be clear, this is immanent creation. To grasp it you have to discard the idea that God operates in time, i.e. that creation "happened" a few-whatever years ago, or is "continuing" on a time-line. God is allocated to eternity, which is part of the ineffable --it has no beginning and no end. Eternity is "now," this moment of existence that, in the context of a "time-line," doesn't exist (only past and future exist there). Creation is now.

Well to be fair, they did a crappy job explaining it. :p

In a sense, objective reality is subjective, too --we are the ones who define what is "out there." There is no "out there" without an "in here" to contrast it by. And we define what is "true" to us.

Right, but again, we're getting far too theoretical and technical here. Let's assume the sky is blue and the grass is green and argue our points from there - the topic can't handle too much theoretical universalism before it explodes. :p

The "True" in terms of the One God refers to a perspective, and all perspectives are ours (subjective and objective are the nominal physical perspectives that have a corresponding metaphor for conscious/mental existence; there is a third that that allows for one to have a perspective on both subjects and objects. I call it a "spiritual" perspective; others call it the "true" perspective.)

And I don't call it anything. I do not see from that perspective, the one that assumes the Christian faith is the right one.

Well, then, you technically qualify as a diety, too, in this polytheistic religion. Congratulations! The "situation the religion puts you in" (whether you participate or not) is co-creator of the universe.

Well to be fair, again, this faith you're talking about is existentialist deism rather than Christianity. In the context of Christianity, I'm not a deity - I'm not the personification or the avatar of anything. It could be argued that Adam and Eve were deities, personifying... I dunno, the victim? Whatever you want to argue them as. But they're not constant through the mythology, which makes things complicated - then again, Chronos was the father of Zeus and he died but he was still considered a deity.

I just don't think they qualify for a deity past anything more than maybe a Tarot card representation. But that's just me and my opinion, I can't really argue it.

Sorry; I get that you'd rather discuss the mytholgical imagery in the context of the myths. It's just so easy to take it a bit too far, to concretize it as if real, if you don't first define what the imagery symbolizes and work within the meanings instead of the images.

Yeah. Just to simplify things and not get into a "no that's metaphor, no that's parable, no that's fable, no that's meant to be taken sarcastically" kind of nitfit, I take the fundamenalist approach and just accept it at face value for the purposes of argument. If I don't do that, I never actually get around to arguing the point.


Yes, in my understanding.

Glad I got another answer =) Quite a big change from page 75 where I had none.

Wine, dance, ecstacy, yup... sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll... hippies and punks have been dissed since the beginning of time. :D

Lawl. Was Bacchus the Roman version or was he something else entirely?

He was hardly random. He fulfilled prophecy.

Eh, how so? Also, if he did that, why aren't the Christians converting to Rastafarianism?

Haven't seen that in any bible. :p
Neither have I, actually. Haven't read the thing, so can't hold it up as any sort of authority.

Good thing it's not the topic. ;)

I'm kind of arguing this point on the assumption that the Christian faith is correct. If we don't do that, then the debate becomes about something else entirely.
Okay.

Again - this is more existentialist deism than it is Christianity.
It's existential every-ism. Mysticism transcends borders.

Right, but again, we're getting far too theoretical and technical here. Let's assume the sky is blue and the grass is green and argue our points from there - the topic can't handle too much theoretical universalism before it explodes. :p
The green grass is green. ;)

Well to be fair, again, this faith you're talking about is existentialist deism rather than Christianity. In the context of Christianity, I'm not a deity - I'm not the personification or the avatar of anything. It could be argued that Adam and Eve were deities, personifying... I dunno, the victim? Whatever you want to argue them as. But they're not constant through the mythology, which makes things complicated - then again, Chronos was the father of Zeus and he died but he was still considered a deity.

I just don't think they qualify for a deity past anything more than maybe a Tarot card representation. But that's just me and my opinion, I can't really argue it.
Well, deism is not a religion separate from Christianity. It's a religious stance - like theism, atheism, nontheism, agnosticism and mysticism - found within many religions. You're right, what I said does resemble that. Deism is the belief that, of those, has the most similarity to mysticism. But there are deist Christians (as well as mystic Christians, and I've even seen people identify themselves as atheist Christians).

But I'll drop this approach, if you like.

Yeah. Just to simplify things and not get into a "no that's metaphor, no that's parable, no that's fable, no that's meant to be taken sarcastically" kind of nitfit, I take the fundamenalist approach and just accept it at face value for the purposes of argument. If I don't do that, I never actually get around to arguing the point.
Okay.

*backs slowly away from the wide-eyed fundie*
:D

Lawl. Was Bacchus the Roman version or was he something else entirely?
If he was, in my vernacular he'd be both, as he would represent "the same" while springing from another culture.

Eh, how so? Also, if he did that, why aren't the Christians converting to Rastafarianism?
Here's a blurb on it from a speech by Marcus Garvey:
"The Psalmist prophesied that Princes would come out of Egypt and Ethiopia would stretch forth her hands unto God. We have no doubt that the time is now come. Ethiopia is now really stretching forth her hands. This great kingdom of the East has been hidden for many centuries, but gradually she is rising to take a leading place in the world and it is for us of the Negro race to assist in every way to hold up the hand of Emperor Ras Tafari."

I suspect the Christians aren't converting because they don't want to. They're probably perfectly happy (or more so) with the God-incarnate that's their own.
:)

Neither have I, actually. Haven't read the thing, so can't hold it up as any sort of authority.

Good thing it's not the topic. ;)

"Christianity: monotheistic or polytheistic?" - sounds like it might be related to the bible. Slightly. Just a bit. Lol

It's existential every-ism. Mysticism transcends borders.

Granted.

The green grass is green. ;)

Granted. I should've said that in the first place, actually, to reflect our perceived reality rather than insisting on grass always being green. If the grass is dead, it's brown. So yeah, you were right, my bad.

Well, deism is not a religion separate from Christianity. It's a religious stance - like theism, atheism, nontheism, agnosticism and mysticism - found within many religions. You're right, what I said does resemble that. Deism is the belief that, of those, has the most similarity to mysticism. But there are deist Christians (as well as mystic Christians, and I've even seen people identify themselves as atheist Christians).

But I'll drop this approach, if you like.

You don't have to - it's interesting, but I just have the feeling that once we get into it, we'll get way off-track and I dunno about you, but I doubt that I have enough breadcrumbs to find my way back.

Okay.

*backs slowly away from the wide-eyed fundie*
:D

He was floatin' thar on the watar, I swar it!

If he was, in my vernacular he'd be both, as he would represent "the same" while springing from another culture.

Mhm. I'm too lazy to wiki him, though.

Here's a blurb on it from a speech by Marcus Garvey:
"The Psalmist prophesied that Princes would come out of Egypt and Ethiopia would stretch forth her hands unto God. We have no doubt that the time is now come. Ethiopia is now really stretching forth her hands. This great kingdom of the East has been hidden for many centuries, but gradually she is rising to take a leading place in the world and it is for us of the Negro race to assist in every way to hold up the hand of Emperor Ras Tafari."

I suspect the Christians aren't converting because they don't want to. They're probably perfectly happy (or more so) with the God-incarnate that's their own.
:)

Eh? That doesn't really help, though. I mean, which prophesies specifically points to this one guy? "Princes" coming out of Egypt doesn't really seem to be related to a second coming of Christ at all in this context, and I dunno about you, but Ethiopia is still a war-torn third-world country. There's no rising, and there's certainly no way Ethiopia's taking a leading place in the world. Also, the speaker seems to be talking just to black people, rather than Christians as a whole, which seems odd.

I mean, I'm not a Christian, so I'm not really biased when I say there's no compelling argument that I can see that this guy is the second coming of Christ, particularly in that the world isn't ending at the moment. They said he'd come back and take the faithful to heaven and leave the rest to suffer on Earth during the apocolypse, lead by the AntiChrist and his four horsemen.

None of that prophecy has been filled yet.


Also, lemme just point out, I don't believe in any of the prophecy in the first place, but I can just point to what it says is supposed to happen and say it hasn't happened yet. If Christ has been reborn and died again already, then according to scripture and prophecy, the apocolypse should be almost done at this point with the faithful already having been taken to heaven.

"Christianity: monotheistic or polytheistic?" - sounds like it might be related to the bible. Slightly. Just a bit. Lol
...more... meets the eye... *whistles softly to herself*

You don't have to - it's interesting, but I just have the feeling that once we get into it, we'll get way off-track and I dunno about you, but I doubt that I have enough breadcrumbs to find my way back.
That would require there being a track. lol

Mhm. I'm too lazy to wiki him, though.
Remember Eutrusca? His name came from the culture upon which Rome sprang. The Romans borrowed heavily from the Greeks, whom they much admired, but they also had their own symbols in place as a foundation, though I don't know if Baccus was one.

If reading is a chore, there's a really cool (and 'R' rated) TV series called "Rome" you might want to look for at the rental place, although that's incidental because it doesn't depict the "mystery" religions.

Eh? That doesn't really help, though. I mean, which prophesies specifically points to this one guy? "Princes" coming out of Egypt doesn't really seem to be related to a second coming of Christ at all in this context, and I dunno about you, but Ethiopia is still a war-torn third-world country. There's no rising, and there's certainly no way Ethiopia's taking a leading place in the world. Also, the speaker seems to be talking just to black people, rather than Christians as a whole, which seems odd.

I mean, I'm not a Christian, so I'm not really biased when I say there's no compelling argument that I can see that this guy is the second coming of Christ, particularly in that the world isn't ending at the moment. They said he'd come back and take the faithful to heaven and leave the rest to suffer on Earth during the apocolypse, lead by the AntiChrist and his four horsemen.

None of that prophecy has been filled yet.


Also, lemme just point out, I don't believe in any of the prophecy in the first place, but I can just point to what it says is supposed to happen and say it hasn't happened yet. If Christ has been reborn and died again already, then according to scripture and prophecy, the apocolypse should be almost done at this point with the faithful already having been taken to heaven.
I, too, am too lazy to look some things up. I did read a biography of Bob Marley a few years ago, and from what I recall Tafari's choosing of a name (honourary) was one significant marker. I think he also had birth marks on his hands that looked like where nails had gone through. But my point was simply that it wasn't random.

...more... meets the eye... *whistles softly to herself*

You're... a Transformer...?

That would require there being a track. lol

This is true. We're in a speedboat, in open water, no land in sight, and it's cloudy so we can't use astronomy to find our way. We're just going on a broken compass and a note from our grandpa to try and keep from getting too far off what little course there is.

Remember Eutrusca? His name came from the culture upon which Rome sprang. The Romans borrowed heavily from the Greeks, whom they much admired, but they also had their own symbols in place as a foundation, though I don't know if Baccus was one.

Didn't the Greeks borrow heavily from a previous one as well? Sumeria, I believe?

If reading is a chore, there's a really cool (and 'R' rated) TV series called "Rome" you might want to look for at the rental place, although that's incidental because it doesn't depict the "mystery" religions.

Yeah I've heard good things about it. I might *cough* aquire a season or two from unknown sources.

I, too, am too lazy to look some things up. I did read a biography of Bob Marley a few years ago, and from what I recall Tafari's choosing of a name (honourary) was one significant marker. I think he also had birth marks on his hands that looked like where nails had gone through. But my point was simply that it wasn't random.

Granted, it's not entirely random: it's rationalized, and may have a couple pieces of evidence to back it up, but it just really doesn't seem to make sense as a whole.

You're... a Transformer...?
ooh, now there's an interesting metaphor. Now you've got me wondering about that movie.

But seriously, I'm not sure what you mean. I just meant that there is more to Christianity than the Bible. The topic can be discussed without referencing it, or without being Christian.

Didn't the Greeks borrow heavily from a previous one as well? Sumeria, I believe?
Okay, now I had to look that up at Wiki, to be sure I was right. Sumer was "near Middle East" located near/in Iraq. The civilization that succeeded it was Babylon.

Granted, it's not entirely random: it's rationalized, and may have a couple pieces of evidence to back it up, but it just really doesn't seem to make sense as a whole.
And Christianity does?

ooh, now there's an interesting metaphor. Now you've got me wondering about that movie.

But seriously, I'm not sure what you mean. I just meant that there is more to Christianity than the Bible. The topic can be discussed without referencing it, or without being Christian.

Transformers: Robots in disguise - Transformers: More than meets the eyes!


So I thought you were referencing. Or... claiming you were one. I have no idea.

Either way, I don't see how we can discuss Christianity without discussing the bible. Attempting to do so would cause me to vomit and become a giant blueberry.

Okay, now I had to look that up at Wiki, to be sure I was right. Sumer was "near Middle East" located near/in Iraq. The civilization that succeeded it was Babylon.

*shrugs* I just remember my History teacher repeating the word "Mesopotamia" over and over...

And Christianity does?

No! It really doesn't! I've been saying that this whole time! I'm loling on the inside!

Transformers: Robots in disguise - Transformers: More than meets the eyes!
D'oh! I didn't make that connection.

But I am going to watch it when it comes on out DVD with an eye to metaphors. :D

Either way, I don't see how we can discuss Christianity without discussing the bible. Attempting to do so would cause me to vomit and become a giant blueberry.
Haha. It (Christianity) can actually be more palatable, this way.

For instance, are you aware of the metaphor of Christianity presented by the movie "The Matrix"?

For instance, are you aware of the metaphor of Christianity presented by the movie "The Matrix"?

I don't mean to butt into this massive dialogue you and Szanth are having to merely nit-pick, but ( at least, as I have been taught) the Matrix is more a metaphor for the Allegory of the Cave than Christianity; Neo is the Philosopher King. Though of course, I do certainly see the other parallels with Christianity.

I don't mean to butt into this massive dialogue you and Szanth are having to merely nit-pick, but ( at least, as I have been taught) the Matrix is more a metaphor for the Allegory of the Cave than Christianity; Neo is the Philosopher King. Though of course, I do certainly see the other parallels with Christianity.

The Allegory of the Cave has parallels in Christian Mysticism, in all mysticism. Other parallels too, right.

I remember the Cave Allegory. First essay I was ever paid to write. One of the best things to happen in grade eight.

Hmm.... Matthew 5:22 says "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Does that mean Mr. T is in trouble?

Hmm.... Matthew 5:22 says "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Does that mean Mr. T is in trouble?

darn skippy.

D'oh! I didn't make that connection.

But I am going to watch it when it comes on out DVD with an eye to metaphors. :D

Gah, fuck no, don't watch that watered down teen crap movie that came out. Watch the original cartoons from the 80's! They suck but they're so fun to watch with friends.

Haha. It (Christianity) can actually be more palatable, this way.

For instance, are you aware of the metaphor of Christianity presented by the movie "The Matrix"?

Am I aware? Are you kidding me? I know fucking EVERYTHING about The Matrix. I've successfully debated that the second and third movies are GOOD and the plotlines make sense! I've done it! I can wave my cock around and say I've done it.

I love that damned Matrix.

I don't mean to butt into this massive dialogue you and Szanth are having to merely nit-pick, but ( at least, as I have been taught) the Matrix is more a metaphor for the Allegory of the Cave than Christianity; Neo is the Philosopher King. Though of course, I do certainly see the other parallels with Christianity.

Both, really (rallah? Rallah.). The fact that they actually named someone "Trinity" is a dead giveaway.

I remember the Cave Allegory. First essay I was ever paid to write. One of the best things to happen in grade eight.

I read "Caves of Socrates" a while back. It's a book about the future, where D&D players are able to actually use full immersion VR and their minds are adjusted to be exactly that of the backstory of their characters. The end boss, the final demon, was the AI program controlling their world.

Hi my name's Szanth, I'm a nerd.

Hmm.... Matthew 5:22 says "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Does that mean Mr. T is in trouble?

Lol. Yes. Fuck yes.

It's my opinion, that the issue of God(s) is more properly approached from a standpoint of epistomology (one in which, incidentally, the statement about lacking empirical content is clearly applicable). Hence I recognize where FS is coming from and the context for the arguments he tried to make, that I was defending.

(Up to page 27 in my reading. Haven't encountered the start of the debate yet, although I have encountered numerous incidents of FS with an epistemic approach to replies.)
Your opinions are all very well and good. MY argument has been that FS has structured his argument badly and therefore not only fails to carry his argument but also fails to make a true epistomological argument. You have failed so far to address my claims of poor execution on the part of FS. You can argue for epistomology all you like, but you are doing little to help FS by not showing me how his errors are not errors.

Btw, if you want to look at this issue from the viewpoint of epistomology, go right ahead. As I said to FS ages ago, it is not a philosophy I personally ascribe to, and any argument that is based upon it properly is one that I will simply agree to disagree with.

I claimed nothing about "proof," nor that evidence was lacking, nor that the picture is an accurate or inaccurate depiction, so I cannot defend the position you ask me to; I'm sorry.

The argument is that empirical evidence does not lack content, whereas ideal rational evidence does.
I am inclined to reject this statement as nonsense. If you want to carry it, you will have to define "ideal rational evidence" in a way that is itself rational, clear, and not obviously concocted to be self-serving. If we were to accept your statement as written, without further explanation, we would have to argue that forensic evidence should not be used in criminal trials because it does not lack empirical content and, therefore, is not "ideal rational evidence." By that same token, I suppose one could argue that the "spectral evidence" used to convict and hang the accused witches of Salem, MA, in the 1600s was "ideal rational evidence" since it totally lacked empirical content. And yet, it was at last disallowed by the legal authorities in Boston, MA, on the very grounds that it had no empirical content, thus putting an end to the witch trials, since there was no other kind of evidence.

<snip>

ME <snip>
You know what? I posted a huge post, and I'm deleting it because I realized way too late that I was mixing Soheran's posts with some of Free Soviets'.

Apparently, I am no longer able to keep up with this debate. I've been away for two days due to work and totally lost track of who I was debating with about what. And I still have lots of real life work to do, so I'm going to quit this thread. Which kind of sucks because I had been enjoying it, but if I can't keep up, there's no point in just confusing things. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Anyway, if anyone was responding to the posts I've made today, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to respond further. I fell out too far out of the loop.

--M

To some, they are compatible. There is growing a cross-section of Christianity that recognizes God as akin to the Dainichi (http://www.answers.com/Dainichi) and the "spirit" of all things in the universe as akin to kami. Judaism has a similar albeit larger cross-section. These beliefs are collectively known in the West as mysticism (or sometimes neo-mysticism).
Edit: link (http://members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/)
I see now that asking you to read the whole thread was a mistake.

The ancient post which you quoted was a specific answer to a specific question about Shinto beliefs and was a sidebar to the general discussion. What possible relevance can it have to Christian beliefs or Jewish beliefs, no matter what "some" may think they are "akin" to?

i did?

Yes, you did.

Interesting.



We've been over this many times - using the word "god" gets confusing, and people insist there is only one God while missing the entire point about there being another god, simply because of the words being used. Deity is simply better for the situation.

<snip>
Yeah, and look how easy things got when you started using "deity." Cleared everything right up, didn't it, because deity knows, there can be no ambivalence about that word. Yup yup.

I like that explanation very much. And it makes it easy to see the cultural similarity between appeals to the Saints and ancestor worship.
More than similarity, actually. Pre-Christian European cultures engaged in heavy ancestor veneration. The midde European Slavic cultures were distinct ancestor worshippers. Today, the Slavic cultures show some of the most enthusiastic veneration of saints, following many of the ancient ritual and social traditions of their pre-Christian beliefs - such as naming children after saints/venerated ancestors and celebrating name days in addition to birth days - in fact, valuing name days above birth days. In the Slavic cultures, the saints most venerated are ones considered personal to an individual, or to a family, and finally to a cultural/ethnic group, and they are often historical figures, not necessarily Christian. Many saints venerated by Slavs are not recognized by the Catholic church, and many non-saints/non-Catholic historical figures are venerated as if they were saints, such as the Czech Jan Hus. In western Europe, the veneration of saints often mirrors the traditions of pre-Christian Rome, particularly in the veneration of patron saints of places and professions, which often serve the same purpose as the patron gods/goddesses of places and professions. Frequently, in those cultures, it does not matter if the saint was a real person or not. In the western cultures, which venerated the dead but did not raise that to the level of worship, historical figure saints are venerated much the same as personal family ancestors, and are appealed to for purely personal reasons.

I believe a good argument could be made that the veneration of saints is a cultural survival of pre-Christian religious beliefs and are not, in and of themselves, core to Christianity but a non-Christian overlay, as it were.

clearly insane. especially since the three are not mere aspects but separate entities that are alleged to have independently acted and conversed with the others.

It's quite simple. The entity known as God is the "Father" when out of this realm of existence. When a portion of his energy takes on a human body, he is known as the "Son", or "Christ". When he enters this realm of existence without a body, he is known as the "Holy Spirit".

The only times where two of them converse is when Christ prays to the Father for strength. However, this does not necessarily mean that they must be two entirely separate entities. It simply could mean that when God sent the portion of himself to this realm, he decided that it would not be possible for the parts to be in constant communication by whatever method he probably could have used. This would make it more difficult for Christ, but that was the point. He was sent here to suffer and get the whole human experience.

I don't expect you to agree with or believe me, since you believe religion to be "clearly insane", but I just thought I would get my opinion out there into the forum for the world to see and hopefully clear things up for some people.

Originally Posted by Szanth <snip>
Wasn't Dionysis the god of wine? I remember lots of jokes with him at the butt end, with all his followers just getting drunk and fucking all the time. They had lots of gods, though, so I could be getting mixed up. <snip>

Originally Posted by GBrooks
Wine, dance, ecstacy, yup... sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll... hippies and punks have been dissed since the beginning of time.

<snip>
Lawl. Was Bacchus the Roman version or was he something else entirely?

<snip>
FYI, Dionysus was superficially the god of wine. He was, more deeply, a god of mysticism and transformation, particularly associated with the transformation of life into death and vice versa, and was worshipped by a set of mystic cults that used intoxicants to create ecstatic trance states. These were fertility cults that also used sex in their rituals. They also maintained secrecy, which is why there was and is a lot of speculative crap written about what they were like.

Today, Dionysus is mostly associated with viniculture (wine), but earlier intoxicants associated with him included brews made from honey and pine cones, hence the bee and the pine cone as well as the grape vine are symbols of Dionysus.

Bacchus is the Roman version of Dionysus and is more about the wine than the mysticism.

In case anyone is interested:
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/dionysus.html

Yeah, and look how easy things got when you started using "deity." Cleared everything right up, didn't it, because deity knows, there can be no ambivalence about that word. Yup yup.

Well it halted the whole "No but there's only one God, it can't be polytheistic! Satan isn't God, what are you talking about?" debacle.

Well it halted the whole "No but there's only one God, it can't be polytheistic! Satan isn't God, what are you talking about?" debacle.Then, is Satan a deity?

Then, is Satan a deity?

Depends on how you answer my question. Some people's answers will be different than others, and I can't see a way to consolidate the two, so it's pretty much a matter of preference.

Depends on how you answer my question. Some people's answers will be different than others, and I can't see a way to consolidate the two, so it's pretty much a matter of preference.

The way to "consolidate" two views is to move to a perspective beyond the parameters set up that allow the dilemma to exist.

The way to "consolidate" two views is to move to a perspective beyond the parameters set up that allow the dilemma to exist.

Such as? I see no way around it.

If Satan has free will, he must be the avatar of evil - no other being in existence can compete with such a title.

That is, unless Satan simply acts upon the wishes of God, in which case, Satan is not a deity.

Such as? I see no way around it.

If Satan has free will, he must be the avatar of evil - no other being in existence can compete with such a title.

That is, unless Satan simply acts upon the wishes of God, in which case, Satan is not a deity.

The parameters you have arranged are a puzzle within a literal interpretation within the confines of Christian tradition. You can "move beyond" this very limited perspective by not employing the literal interpretation, by exceeding the confines of Christian tradition as they are presented, or even further by moving beyond the confines of Christian tradition to examine the symbols employed from another view.

The parameters you have arranged are a puzzle within a literal interpretation within the confines of Christian tradition. You can "move beyond" this very limited perspective by not employing the literal interpretation, by exceeding the confines of Christian tradition as they are presented, or even further by moving beyond the confines of Christian tradition to examine the symbols employed from another view.

Well we're looking from within the Christian point of view, and if we were to not take the literalist version we would endlessly be arguing about what is and is not metaphor and blah blah etc.

Those who do not take a literalist/fundamentalist point of view with the Christian faith, we cannot debate the point.

Well we're looking from within the Christian point of view, and if we were to not take the literalist version we would endlessly be arguing about what is and is not metaphor and blah blah etc.
Hehe. But it doesn't have to be that way. Again, you're setting parameters.

Hehe. But it doesn't have to be that way. Again, you're setting parameters.

Well if there are no parameters at all, then we're all debating from different viewpoints, each person assuming the goalpost is in a different place.

I can't see us getting very far with that. The idea at the beginning of the thread was that we wouldn't be able to debate anything unless we set some definitions down and went from there.

Well if there are no parameters at all, then we're all debating from different viewpoints, each person assuming the goalpost is in a different place.

I can't see us getting very far with that. The idea at the beginning of the thread was that we wouldn't be able to debate anything unless we set some definitions down and went from there.

Right! But they should be flexible definitions, not fixed, for the purposes of this discussion alone. The goalposts, too, should never be assumed in advance of any discussion, especially if you want to reach a resolution. And since you were unable to reach resolution with the definitions determined, they must be re-examined if you want to reach that resolution. The parameters that hold them in place in this case are inhibiting flow.

Socrates set up this method of parlaying. He would begin his discussions between two minds, head to head, and for the sake of any one discussion the definitions agreed upon then and there were the only ones that would matter, and if they don't work, it's the definitions that must change.

Right! But they should be flexible definitions, not fixed, for the purposes of this discussion alone. The goalposts, too, should never be assumed in advance of any discussion, especially if you want to reach a resolution. And since you were unable to reach resolution with the definitions determined, they must be re-examined if you want to reach that resolution. The parameters that hold them in place in this case are inhibiting flow.

Socrates set up this method of parlaying. He would begin his discussions between two minds, head to head, and for the sake of any one discussion the definitions agreed upon then and there were the only ones that would matter, and if they don't work, it's the definitions that must change.

But we have reached conclusions and resolutions. We cannot say, definitively, one way or the other regardless, that Satan is a deity. It's all in how you interpret his influence and how large you believe his role in the bible to be. Nothing else really matters.

But we have reached conclusions and resolutions. We cannot say, definitively, one way or the other regardless, that Satan is a deity. It's all in how you interpret his influence and how large you believe his role in the bible to be. Nothing else really matters.

Alright, then; this is a good thing. If "no resolution" is the resolution you're all happy with, then you can rightly pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

That's what it is to be human. :D

Alright, then; this is a good thing. If "no resolution" is the resolution you're all happy with, then you can rightly pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

That's what it is to be human. :D

And it only took 82 pages!