Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2012, 11:17 AM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2012 11:25 AM by nach_in.)
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 10:51 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(13-09-2012 10:46 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Yes, I'm aware of that, but there's a limit for the definition or it's just not a god anymore. The only characteristic I think is the most fundamental is that a god must participate in the creation of EVERYTHING, without that it's just a glorified alien.
No, that's not a fundamental characteristic at all.

-> Polytheism
-> Norse gods
-> Egyptian gods
-> Greek and Roman gods

(13-09-2012 10:46 AM)nach_in Wrote:  I think that it should also be some sort of sentient being, but I'm not sure about that one Undecided
A god doesn't have to be sentient either.

-> Deism
-> Pantheism

then let me change the scope a bit, can we come up with a set of definitions of gods that contain every god thought of until now? like a definition of the "god genus"



(13-09-2012 11:14 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  So you want to prove that something non-existent is in fact non-existent.
I don't have an invisible, intangible apple in my hand. How can I go about proving that ?

Hmmmm ??

by disproving anything that not having the apple should cause. there isn't an apple, then you can't eat it. If you try and you do eat the apple (because you could chew it or whatever) then the apple is real, and you were wrong about not having an apple Tongue

In other words, evidence of absence of the consequences is evidence of absence of the cause

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 11:21 AM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 08:44 AM)nach_in Wrote:  can we come up with an universal, omni-comprehensive definition of god?

Wow, that's not asking much.

Yes, maybe you and I could come up with that, but no religious believer will accept it (unless we tailor our definition to his belief but then all other believers in different religions would not accept our tailored definition).

If you don't want religious believers to accept our definition, then what's the point? We could only use our definition to argue among ourselves, but I think most of us here don't need this omni-comprehensive god definition to prove to ourselves that god does not exist.

So since you probably want to use this definition in debates with religious believers, I assume you really mean to ask: "can we come up with a universal, omni-comprehensive definition of god that will be acceptable to all believers of all religions?"

This seems quite impossible to me. Those religions are full of believers who disagree, usually vehemently, often violently, on their different definitions of god. Finding one omni-comprehensive definition of god that they would all accept seems impossible, unless the definition is so deliberately vague as to be meaningless, e.g. "a super power that watches over us" (and even that is not truly omni-comprehensive).

So, we need to update your premise again: "can we come up with a meaningful, universal, omni-comprehensive definition of god that is neither vague nor ambiguous, that will be acceptable to all believers of all religions?"

Anything less than that and we will not have a useful definition that can be used as a premise for establishing any universal proofs.

(13-09-2012 08:44 AM)nach_in Wrote:  If so, then we can move on to what does that imply... and if we can prove that wrong we would have proved god doesn't exist

Well, given your predication upon a seemingly impossible task, this turns out to be a really big "If"...

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 11:21 AM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 11:17 AM)nach_in Wrote:  then let me change the scope a bit, can we come up with a set of definitions of gods that contain every god thought of until now? like a definition of the "god genus"
Aside from the fact that it would be (nearly) impossible to create such a set of definitions because the definition of 'god' varies from human to human, I could think of a new god that isn't included in your list at any time, rendering it incomplete.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 12:13 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
Then a god isn't something that can be defined (which is different than saying that is something that cannot be defined), good, we reached agnosticism Big Grin

but then even belief is impossible, because in order to believe in something we must at least define it, but then that thing you believe in isn't a god Tongue

the only possibility left is saying "I believe in not-something-definable" and for someone who believes in such a mental fart there's no hope No

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
13-09-2012, 12:16 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 11:17 AM)nach_in Wrote:  like a definition of the "god genus"

Metagod. For the meta demagogue. Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 12:22 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 12:16 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(13-09-2012 11:17 AM)nach_in Wrote:  like a definition of the "god genus"

Metagod. For the meta demagogue. Dodgy

[Image: 3p6sw1.jpg]

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
13-09-2012, 12:22 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
Pff. This all sounds like crazy lawyer talk. Blink

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 12:27 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 12:22 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Pff. This all sounds like crazy lawyer talk. Blink

You're right, it is... don't you love lawyers? Angel

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 12:36 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 12:27 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(13-09-2012 12:22 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Pff. This all sounds like crazy lawyer talk. Blink

You're right, it is... don't you love lawyers? Angel

Only if you can help me get out of jail the next time.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 12:38 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 12:13 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Then a god isn't something that can be defined (which is different than saying that is something that cannot be defined), good, we reached agnosticism Big Grin

but then even belief is impossible, because in order to believe in something we must at least define it, but then that thing you believe in isn't a god Tongue

the only possibility left is saying "I believe in not-something-definable" and for someone who believes in such a mental fart there's no hope No
I don't follow your logic. Why do you think that it's not possible to define the term 'god'?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: