An Argument for God (cont.)
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2013, 12:03 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 01:40 AM by DeepThought.)
An Argument for God (cont.)
I tried to post this in the other thread, but it's like it's broken. So...

(03-04-2013 11:55 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  [quote='Phaedrus' pid='282017' dateline='1365001450']

Egor is conflating the concept of a thing and the thing itself. It's an equivocation fallacy.

He actually hasn't made this equivocation yet. You and others are just assuming that's where he is going.


Well said, Mr. Blome.

(03-04-2013 07:04 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  [quote='Egor' pid='281872' dateline='1364969417']

Fine, what is an example of something that exists?

This apple in my hand exists.[/quote]

Good. We can go with the apple. That’s a good one.

not sure who said this Wrote:You're the one asking me if a thing can exist, so you need to define what you mean by thing first.
But just for the sake of argument, I'll say a thing is a physical object.

That’s fine, we can leave “concepts” out of the equation for now. We’ll just go with the apple.

(03-04-2013 07:11 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  In this thought game the only "things" that do not "exist" are those things that do not or have not existed physically OR concepts that have not been thought of. An unknown problem occurs when you, as an individual, haven't thought of Mt. Everest being made of ice cream and gum drops but Aseptic Skeptic has. You don't know it exists as a concept but according to this definition it already does.

Ah, but as soon as I am aware of it, it exists as a concept. Until then I never even would have considered it. But it may be very important later on that if I am not conceiving it, it doesn’t exist—as a concept. So, we’ll hold off on that for now, if you don’t mind.

Quote:Take it further, you have a concept of a god. In your definition it exists. I have a concept of god not existing. Do they cancel each other out or do both "things" exist/not exist simultaneously?

Well, no, you can’t conceive of a thing not existing as a concept—that’s a contradiction. The one thing clear-thinking atheists and theists agree on is that God exists as a concept. It’s kind of hard to be an atheist and not concede that point.

(03-04-2013 08:25 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  At the risk of being off-topic, Egor-

Not a problem, because I wouldn’t have addressed you “on topic.” You started with an insult—typical.

But off topic, I will address you as an aside only because it’s something I want to talk about:

Quote:When you talk to god have you ever asked him why he has chosen you and only you to be his new messenger? Have you tried to suggest to him that perhaps on a planet of multiple billions that maybe more than one messenger may be more efficient. Shit, maybe one per continent would be a vast improvement.

More than that, I’ve asked Him why me at all, because my sins are as heavy as lead. You atheists will never understand those feelings of remorse and regret. And I’m a terrible example of Christ, which only adds to the guilt of my life. And while I can’t talk about specifics, He actually has to miraculously protect me from myself just to use me in the first place. It’s ridiculous. But here’s what He says:

“I raised you up for this. I made you for this. You will do it, or I will kill you. Of all people— you most cannot justify your existence in this world, and I will not leave you in it if you sever our tie. There is no turning back Edward Jerome.”

Then He brings part of a song to mind and it’s so loud, I can’t get it out. I actually have to buy it from Amazon: “Breathe” By Anna Nalick:

Cuz you can’t jump the track
We’re like cars on a cable
And life’s like an hourglass glued to the table
No one can find the rewind button now.
Sing it if you understand.

That’s a prophecy. And that’s my answer. And if I were to speculate, I would guess there’s no one else at this time in this generation of humankind.

(03-04-2013 08:51 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  [quote='Egor' pid='281872' dateline='1364969417']

Really? So are you saying that only observed things exist?

I'm saying that only things that that have been directly or indirectly observed can be said to exist. (Similarly, we can observe non-existence if we do it right; I can observe that no apple exists in my hand at this moment, for example.)

Okay. Remember you said it.

(03-04-2013 09:21 AM)Joh Wrote:  Are things either real or not real?

Is this world an either or world?

No. In quantum mechanics there is sort of an in-between. Electrons for example can be waves and particles at the same time. You can describe their location as probability waves. So It can be true and false at the same time that they are at location x. Look at the double slit experiment for instance. As soon as you observe electrons, their wave functions collapse and they become particles with a distinct location. This is the physics of the very small. Where quantum mechanics theoretically goes macro is for instance is the thought experiment of Schrödingers cat. You imagine a cat being placed in a box with a container of poison. The container with poison opens when a radioactive substance decays. It does so with a certain probability per time period. So after a certain time period from the outside the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. Only after opening the box the cat is dead or is alive.

Now if you apply this idea to the concept of a god:

God defined as something unobservable is not being observed and never will be, can be considered as true and false at the same time. However! It will always stay an in-between and never turn true or false! Electrons can be observed. Cats can be observed. The wave functions collapse and become distinct when they are being observed.

So all concepts that cannot be falsified, cannot be true!

They also cannot be false. But the same thing applies to any unprovable/unfalsifiable concept you can name. An anti-god for instance that cancels out a god. Sorry, stupid idea, but i needed a stupid example Wink

Thanks for the primer.

(03-04-2013 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  And electrons are not particles and/or waves, they are what they are and exhibit properties like particles and like waves.

Right…in my opinion. Also, In my opinion, the closer you get to the Fundamental Monistic Consciousness, the stranger things begin to seem. If we were to get closer, we eventually wouldn’t be able to tell what was in our mind and what is outside of our mind. But that’s what scientists will discover in the future. For now, we have an argument to pursue.

(03-04-2013 09:50 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ... Egor, I think the fact that we started serious arguments with EACH OTHER over whether existence is a binary state, when that was just the first leading question you asked, suggests that a Socratic approach will get derailed before it bears fruit.
Nah, I’ll filter out the noise.

As it stands, we agree that at least physical objects actually exist, and we picked an apple as an example of an object.

Concepts exist as well, but that’s a different path to God that I’m not taking here. The apple is good.
Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 12:04 AM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 12:05 AM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
Good thinking. It's always best to put forward your best argument right out of the box.


The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 12:09 AM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
I'm not sure this reply is going to take. If it does, I will go back and try to respond in the first post "An Argument for God" and see what happens there.
Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 12:21 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 06:01 PM by Doctor X.)
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 12:31 AM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
Is a secondary thread for an already pointless topic really necessary?

If God exists I hope he has a good excuse -Woody Allen
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoughtful Nate's post
04-04-2013, 12:53 AM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 12:21 AM)Doctor X Wrote:  The Good[(Sic)--Ed.] Doctor's Prodigiously Pretentiously Pompously Perspicaciously Pedagogical Pediatric Pontine Tumor Proof

Here, again, is a real observation that requires explanation despite EddieBaby's cowardice. Children and adolescents develop a rather nasty tumor of the brain stem, particularly the metencephalon, or pons. It is infiltrative and not amenable to surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy. The latter two therapies merely prolong the ultimate decline.

[Image: 1-s2.0-S1470204506706155-gr2.jpg]

The decline? As with real estate, the watchword for the central nervous system is "location!" The tumor destroys the descending voluntary pathways and centers for the cranial nerves which enervate facial musculature whilst preserving the sensory pathways. The child progressively losses control of her body up to her eye muscles which allows some rudimentary communication. Since the trigger for consciousness is located in the more rostral ventral midbrain or mesencephalon, she remains conscious throughout the months of decline. During this deterioration, she retains sensation and consciousness. She feels every ulcer, every pain; she remains completely aware of her condition and decline.

Eventually, on a tracheostomy, she will succumb usually to an infection.

This is not only a real case, it is all too frequent.

In fact, here is a quote given to me from a parent left on a webpage in which the parent describes the condition:

Quote:"Today, thanks to God's mercy he still with us. He can no longer walk on his own, the weakness on the left side of his body has increased, his speech is slurred and I am watching how the spark of life is slowly but surely dimming. His little body, swollen by the steroids, is slowly giving way to an end. I do not have an idea of how much time I will have with him."

I am not sure “mercy” is a word that applies.

This is a case of Unjustified Suffering unless you or anyone else can find some manner in which to justify it. Notice that I do not attack the death--people die. Perhaps she was destined to be the next Celine Dion. . . . It is the extent and severity of the suffering that renders it Unjustified Suffering. What did the child do to deserve it? Consider then why Josef Mengele passed easily from a stroke while swimming. Why did he apparently deserve a far easier passage?

Perhaps imagine a Heaven and a Hell--dream up a reward and punishment that will somehow magically balance the books, so to write? The problem remains the extent and severity of the suffering. If die she must, far quicker and less-severe methods do end a tyke's existence. Forced listening of country-western music, for example. Children do, unfortunately, ask what the did wrong to be punished by such a condition. What "reward" balances it? Is it greater than that obtained by children who die of leukemia, car accidents, and falling masonry? Why? Furthermore, that one imagines a Mengele horribly tortured throughout eternity--something involving fish hooks and Patsy Cline--does not justify the extensive and severe suffering of the child. Finally, if some grand argumentum ad ignorantiam of a "reward" exists, why do not the children who die of the less-horrible leukemia and steam rollers deserve it?

Since No Alleviation of her Unjustified Suffering occurred, we are left with Five Possible Choices [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.] regarding deities:

1. No Deity Exists
2. A Deity Exists and He is Evil
3. A Deity Exists and He is Incompetent
4. A Deity Exists and He is Irrelevant
5. A Deity Exists and He is Some Combination of 2-4

all are, of course, free to choose from any one of the Five.

For some reason, EddieBaby lacks the sphincter tone to choose. At least the child has an excuse for her lack of . . . tone.


The fact that she is a child is not relavent to your argument. The real question is why do we have to suffer? Phil Ken Sebben said, "I know when I die I'm going to heaven because I've already been to Hell". Can true joy exists without pain and suffering? Maybe God made humans to suffer in order so that they may experience true joy.

So how about 6. A deity exists and he loves us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 01:25 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 06:01 PM by Doctor X.)
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Doctor X's post
04-04-2013, 02:04 AM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
I really like Doctorx's response.

Essentially you'd have to concede that every disease, parasite, and error in DNA replication(cancer, genetic diseases etc). Were created by god. Yet these things seem not only curable, but have no relation to a god.

Then you should ask your self what is the purpose of such things if god created them? Not simply reply with god loves you.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 02:06 AM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 01:25 AM)Docter X Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 12:53 AM)My Bitch Wrote:  The fact that she is a child is not relavent [Sic--Ed.] to your argument.

Ipse dixit but incorrect. It is a fact; a concept with which, I grant, you lack familiarity.

Quote:The real question is why do we have to suffer?

Ipse dixit times two but incorrect times two. "T3h R34lz Question" is Unjust Suffering

Helps if one reads prior to response.

Quote:So how about 6. A deity exists and he loves us.

That would be Incompetent.

Again, best if one read a post prior to any attempt to respond to it.

Quod erat demonstrandum. . . .


If God created the world so that the worst that happens to a human being is they get a hang nail, you'd be here whining about that too. However, If you are okay with God allowing some suffering but not the specific suffering that you repeatedly give as an example, then your whole position is based on your own value judgement. Why should I depend on the value of someone like you who relies on lies and insults to make your case? You use the tools of the weak minded so why should I not dismiss you as such? There is no need to refer to me as "my bitch" or alter my quotes except for the sake of trolling.

I don't believe your really interested in having an intelligent discussion. It seems very apparent now that you've come here to circle-jerk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: