Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2012, 12:58 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(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. I think that it should also be some sort of sentient being, but I'm not sure about that one Undecided
I don't agree with those limits, but it really doesn't matter. Even if we go with those limits, there are still countless variations that fit.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 01:16 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 12:38 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(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'?

see below

(13-09-2012 12:58 PM)Impulse 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. I think that it should also be some sort of sentient being, but I'm not sure about that one Undecided
I don't agree with those limits, but it really doesn't matter. Even if we go with those limits, there are still countless variations that fit.

That's the thing, if there's not a possible single definition we can take and work from there, then we have infinite variations, which is pretty much the same as saying it's impossible to define. Unless we say there are infinite gods, which has never been claimed by any religion that I know of...

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 01:27 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 01:16 PM)nach_in Wrote:  That's the thing, if there's not a possible single definition we can take and work from there, then we have infinite variations, which is pretty much the same as saying it's impossible to define. Unless we say there are infinite gods, which has never been claimed by any religion that I know of...
You can still define the individual gods. Most of them do have names other than 'god' after all.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
13-09-2012, 01:55 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 01:16 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(13-09-2012 12:38 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I don't follow your logic. Why do you think that it's not possible to define the term 'god'?

see below

(13-09-2012 12:58 PM)Impulse Wrote:  I don't agree with those limits, but it really doesn't matter. Even if we go with those limits, there are still countless variations that fit.

That's the thing, if there's not a possible single definition we can take and work from there, then we have infinite variations, which is pretty much the same as saying it's impossible to define. Unless we say there are infinite gods, which has never been claimed by any religion that I know of...
No, don't get me wrong. It's quite possible to define a god. But it would only be one of countless possibilities. So you could proceed with your refutation, but you're going to have to do it countless times before you could possible establish that no gods exists. However, if you're up to the task, then you need to start with one. So I would suggest you define one and go from there. But good luck, it sounds like an insurmountable task to me. Cool

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 07:05 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
you're not getting me, I know we can define something and say it's god, but then we find that god not to exist because it implies something false. Then we move on to a more vague definition so we can dodge that proof... and so on and so forth until we get such a definition that is not definition at all... therefore there's no possible definition of a god.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 08:12 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
Let's try something a bit simpler. Try to prove that Darth Varder doesn't exist.
He's a well defined fictional character in a book just like the fictional god character.

Since you can't decide on a definition of god, lets try it with a well defined fictional character.

How do you want to go about proving Darth Vader doesn't exist ?
Lots of galaxies out there. Billions so I'm told. Lots of planets in lots of galaxies.
I would contend that it's more plausible that Darth Vader exists than some manufactured god made up by stoned goat herders.

What would your first step be ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 08:20 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 08:12 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Let's try something a bit simpler. Try to prove that Darth Varder doesn't exist.
He's a well defined fictional character in a book just like the fictional god character.

Since you can't decide on a definition of god, lets try it with a well defined fictional character.

How do you want to go about proving Darth Vader doesn't exist ?
Lots of galaxies out there. Billions so I'm told. Lots of planets in lots of galaxies.
I would contend that it's more plausible that Darth Vader exists than some manufactured god made up by stoned goat herders.

What would your first step be ?

Darth vader can use the force, but nobody can use the force because it doesn't exist. threfore Darth Vader can't exist Smartass

[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, 11:37 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 07:05 PM)nach_in Wrote:  you're not getting me, I know we can define something and say it's god, but then we find that god not to exist because it implies something false. Then we move on to a more vague definition so we can dodge that proof... and so on and so forth until we get such a definition that is not definition at all... therefore there's no possible definition of a god.
Huh

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 11:50 PM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2012 09:37 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
Unless we can figure out some sort of negative tautology, it's hopeless. Any "definition" is (self) limiting. It's this, and not that. That will never work. Nach_in was right. It's more of a linguistic conundrum, than a Philosophy problem.

A sentient being requires (space)time to process the information.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2012, 12:04 PM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 01:16 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Unless we say there are infinite gods, which has never been claimed by any religion that I know of...

Mormons. A new god is in the making every time a Mormon man dies.

Just sayin'...

(13-09-2012 01:16 PM)nach_in Wrote:  That's the thing, if there's not a possible single definition we can take and work from there, then we have infinite variations, which is pretty much the same as saying it's impossible to define.

Isn't that what we have in the world today? Maybe not quite infinite, but we definitely have no "single definition" of god, and we do have many variations.

But it's interesting to note that many religions cannot even define the specific variation that they claim is the real one. For example, Christians usually define god as "A supernatural omnipotent omniscient omni-benevolent perfect all-loving creator father who exists outside of space and time while simultaneously being omnipresent". Yes, I know that this is oversimplifying the apologist definition and over-complicating the definition that's probably held by the average butt in the pew on Sunday - I was shooting for somewhere in the fuzzy middle.

But when you take apart a definition like that, point out the inconsistencies, paradoxes, and even the simple fact that including "supernatural" in a definition makes it stop being a definition, suddenly you realize that it's not a definition at all - it simply boils down to something like "a magic friend who loves me" which really doesn't define anything.

So if THEY can't define their own favorite flavor, how can we do it, and then expand that definition to cover all the other flavors too?

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: