For TheBorg,
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2016, 02:58 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 02:54 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  
(31-08-2016 02:49 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Well we are not limited to perception, fortunately. Since I'm not arguing that there isn't a god because I don't see one or feel one or perceive one any other way, I'm not committing the same error in thinking.

I guess I was confused by the fact that you said you were certain in you unbelief. I took it as you were certain there was no God, not that you were certain that you are not led to believe in a God at this time. My Apologies

I did a quick edit on my post by the way, adding a bit about this idea of primacy of existence. you responded before I could post it.. If you feel inclined perhaps you could give me your thoughts on this.

I'm certain that the claims of theism are false. I don't have to go so far, nor would I attempt, to prove that a god does not exist. If gods do not exist, there's no need to prove this. This would be asking me to step outside of existence to find evidence of a god's non existence. If something doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2016, 03:05 PM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2016 03:09 PM by DLJ.)
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 02:50 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  ...
I see no problem in not believing there is a God. I see a problem in believing that you are certain there is no God.
...

So, that problem would be the 'gnostic atheist' position... with 100% certainty.

What degree of uncertainty would de-problem it?

Am I allowed to be certain that certain gods don't exist?

How about Jupiter? I'm certain of that, by Jove!

Big Grin




"Word-play of the week award goes to ..."

Smartass

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
31-08-2016, 04:14 PM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2016 04:59 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 02:50 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  
(31-08-2016 02:38 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  The flaw in your argument is that cavemen likely didn't care if there was a planet outside of the one their cave was located.

I don't believe that gods exist based on evidence that they were invented by people. Why else would something that is capable of knowing, doing and seeing all, would also possess such incredibly petty human emotions?

Lastly what's the difference between something you cannot prove to exist and something that doesn't actually exist at all?

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
― Mark Twain

Why does the caring of a thing matter in terms of its existence?

That's a fine stance to have. I see no problem in not believing there is a God. I see a problem in believing that you are certain there is no God.

The difference is that it exists regardless of you know it or not. That is something

Do you know why "it exists regardless of you know it or not"? Because existence has primacy over consciousness. That same principle proves that theism, which affirms the primacy of consciousness over existence, is false. Do you still have a problem with claiming certainty? If so then you are saying that we can have no knowledge. That we are not conscious.

Mr. Nobody, can you be certain that there are no 1,000 storey skyscrapers in New York City, yes or no? Can we be certain that there are no square circles, yes or no?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2016, 06:32 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 02:50 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  Why does the caring of a thing matter in terms of its existence?

That's a fine stance to have. I see no problem in not believing there is a God. I see a problem in believing that you are certain there is no God.

The difference is that it exists regardless of you know it or not. That is something

Why does it seem to matter to you? You gave an example of cavemen not knowing about the planet Jupiter, I merely pointed out they were likely more concerned with their cave than what was beyond it.

That's what happens when your days are filled with the task of survival. You don't have time to contemplate much else. Such ponderences occurred much later as people had more leisure to persue such activities.

I actually believe there is strong evidence that could be how religions became into being. People and their lives were filled drudgery, but a few storytellers became intrinsic to communities -- entertainment for the time. Probably because they were too old or infirm to be of much use. Gradually over time those stories morphed into fantastic tales with supernatural plot points -- which grew into lessons for others. How to behave a certain way or the monkey man will get you. Eventually the monkey man was replaced by a deity.

Those deities were folded into new and improved ones, which proved lucrative to many people. Religious leaders, clerics, holy men, were always given preferential treatment and long as someone believed and followed the deity -- and thereby believed the words of the whomever claimed such authority. Also, allowing people to keep feasts and celebrations when the new god belief was ushered in didn't hurt their cause either. People tend to like their holidays, doesn't matter what their called.

Do I personally believe gods have existed? I don't make that claim, but I simply assert there is no evidence they ever have existed.

If something cannot be proved to exist, meaning by reasonable means without moving goal-posts to fit what amounts to feelings, it probably doesn't exist.

If there was no test to prove that Zeus existed or Jupieter or Posieden...or Ra, or Thor, or any of the other hundreds of fallen all powerful deities what is the test for proving any deity exists today?

It must be more than what you "feel" is true.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
31-08-2016, 09:11 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 02:31 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  
(27-08-2016 09:22 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Yep, blurring the line between the imaginary and the real is theism's stock in trade and believing that something is possible just because one can imagine it is a consequence of theism's alliegence to the primacy of consciousness. unfortunately, this view is not limited to theists alone. I hold that if one does not recognize explicitly and consistently the primacy of existence, one will not be able to avoid, somewhere in their worldview, blurring this line.

I think it's why theists react the way they do to any unbeliever who expresses certainty in their unbelief. It's why they constantly want atheists to say they're agnostic instead of atheist. As long as you are willing to grant the possibility that a God exists, even though there is no alternative but the imagination if one tries to comprehend their God. We can't see it or perceive it in any way. We can't deduce it from any rationally informed premises. We can't infer it without trading in stolen concepts. What's left?

There was a time when the Caveman couldn't see or perceive the existence of the planet we now call Jupiter. What happened to be left was the fact that indeed it does exist. An atheist who certainly is certain that a God could not exist commits the same error in thinking that a Christian makes about non-existence of evolution. They both are overestimating their ability to perceive. There is merit in forming theories and laws based on scientific observations. There is danger in the belief that our observations are all encompassing, precluding the possibility of all other things because we can not observe it at this time.

To me it seems that only the Agnostic could hold the view of the primacy of existence. Being that for the Certain Athiest existence only extends to what we know to be true. Existence is determinant on knowledge, not an independently and inherent truth, whether we can perceive it or not.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

Also, Jupiter is one of the most visible planets to the naked eye... and would have been even more so in the prehistoric days before smog and light pollution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
31-08-2016, 09:35 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 11:32 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  ... But surely some other theists have read it. So we need to allow more time. Surely if theist can make this distinction on the basis of theism's own premises, they would not withhold this information. If this question were asked obout my philosophy, I'd be eager to answer. It's just that there aren't many theists on here, I'm sure.

I read your OP but I didn’t understand a word of it. If you want me to address your OP, you'll have to dumb it down a lot more than you already tried to do. Confused

(27-08-2016 09:22 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I think it's why theists react the way they do to any unbeliever who expresses certainty in their unbelief. It's why they constantly want atheists to say they're agnostic instead of atheist.

This is a broad generalization. Neither me, nor members of my religion constantly want atheists to say they’re agnostic. We’re focused on people’s physical actions and how those actions impact the world. What would worrying about an atheist’s position on G-d gain me, anyway? Nothing.

(27-08-2016 09:22 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  As long as you are willing to grant the possibility that a God exists, even though there is no alternative but the imagination if one tries to comprehend their God. We can't see it or perceive it in any way. We can't deduce it from any rationally informed premises. We can't infer it without trading in stolen concepts. What's left?

Correct. According to my religion, we cannot comprehend G-d. We can kind of sort of fathom aspects of G-d, but we’re really just a bunch of meat sacks whose opinions on the subject won’t matter in the long run anyway.

Think what you want.

(28-08-2016 06:57 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Well on theism's premise, if you want to be a god you are one.

What? This is not reflective of my views.

(31-08-2016 02:58 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I'm certain that the claims of theism are false. I don't have to go so far, nor would I attempt, to prove that a god does not exist. If gods do not exist, there's no need to prove this. This would be asking me to step outside of existence to find evidence of a god's non existence. If something doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist.

Likewise, I don’t have to prove that G-d exists. Whether G-d does or does not exist, the deed is already done. Our believing it won’t change it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2016, 09:56 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
I think I smell a dirty, wrinkled, stinky shriveled sock...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2016, 10:03 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 02:31 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  
(27-08-2016 09:22 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Yep, blurring the line between the imaginary and the real is theism's stock in trade and believing that something is possible just because one can imagine it is a consequence of theism's alliegence to the primacy of consciousness. unfortunately, this view is not limited to theists alone. I hold that if one does not recognize explicitly and consistently the primacy of existence, one will not be able to avoid, somewhere in their worldview, blurring this line.

I think it's why theists react the way they do to any unbeliever who expresses certainty in their unbelief. It's why they constantly want atheists to say they're agnostic instead of atheist. As long as you are willing to grant the possibility that a God exists, even though there is no alternative but the imagination if one tries to comprehend their God. We can't see it or perceive it in any way. We can't deduce it from any rationally informed premises. We can't infer it without trading in stolen concepts. What's left?

There was a time when the Caveman couldn't see or perceive the existence of the planet we now call Jupiter. What happened to be left was the fact that indeed it does exist. An atheist who certainly is certain that a God could not exist commits the same error in thinking that a Christian makes about non-existence of evolution. They both are overestimating their ability to perceive. There is merit in forming theories and laws based on scientific observations. There is danger in the belief that our observations are all encompassing, precluding the possibility of all other things because we can not observe it at this time.

To me it seems that only the Agnostic could hold the view of the primacy of existence. Being that for the Certain Athiest existence only extends to what we know to be true. Existence is determinant on knowledge, not an independently and inherent truth, whether we can perceive it or not.

Mr. nobody,

I was in a hurry today in responding so I missed the second part of your response. I can only surmise that you don't understand what the primacy of existence is. I've read it several times and I'm not sure what you mean by "existence is determinant on knowledge, not an independently and inherent truth. So you'll need to clarify your statement a little.

The issue of primacy has to do with specifically whith the relationship between a subject of consciousness and its objects. In every case of conscious awareness, there are two players involved, the one aware, the subject, and the object it is aware of. Thus there is a relationship there but it isn't a relationship of equals. One of them has primacy over the other. There are two possible orientations of this relationship. There is the objective orientation represented by the primacy of existence. This is the principle that the objects of consciousness exist and are what they are independent of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing, liking, wanting, praying, believing, perceiving, etc. Then there is the opposite orientation, the subjective orientation, represented by the primacy of consciousness. This is the notion that existence has its source in and conforms to conscious intentions such as wishing, liking, wanting, praying, believing, perceiving, etc. Every observation we make affirms the objective position on this most fundamental issue in philosophy. It is not even debatable. Indeed the very concept of debate depends on there being objective truth. If there is no objectivity then there's nothing to debate. Any philosophy which affirms the POC affirms metaphysical subjectivism, as theism does. Any philosophy such as mine that affirms the POE affirms metaphysical objectivism.

As far as only an agnostic being able to hold the view of the primacy of existence, anyone who denies it is in essence saying that wishing makes things so. The primacy of existence is axiomatic. Whenever someone makes a truth claim they are implicitly saying that it is true independent of anyone's conscious wishing or liking. I've never heard a theist say that their god's existence is dependent on their consciousness, yet this is what they would have to say in order to be consistent. I've heard plenty of them say there God exists whether anyone likes it or not. When they do this they affirm the POE, thereby contradicting their own worldview.

So I hope you have a little better understanding of this issue now.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2016, 10:49 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
Unwordsalad that question, please.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kingschosen's post
31-08-2016, 10:52 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
Hello! Big Grin

(31-08-2016 02:31 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  There was a time when the Caveman couldn't see or perceive the existence of the planet we now call Jupiter. What happened to be left was the fact that indeed it does exist.

*Nods* This is true/correct. Yes


(31-08-2016 02:31 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  An atheist who certainly is certain that a God could not exist commits the same error in thinking that a Christian makes about non-existence of evolution.

No, that statement is not correct. The two examples now given are not the same.

The cave-folk and their lack of skills knowledge is almost the opposite of a current person and the information available to them about evolution.

(31-08-2016 02:31 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  They both are overestimating their ability to perceive.

Um, I don't think they are and in a way it's not actually about 'perception'. Consider Though I may be wrong there.

(31-08-2016 02:31 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  There is merit in forming theories and laws based on scientific observations. There is danger in the belief that our observations are all encompassing, precluding the possibility of all other things because we can not observe it at this time.

Um, again, I don't actually think ow the method you're talking about is working/does work. Consider

Again, better educated people will come along and point out the differences better. Thumbsup


(31-08-2016 02:31 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  To me it seems that only the Agnostic could hold the view of the primacy of existence. Being that for the Certain Atheist existence only extends to what we know to be true. Existence is determinant on knowledge, not an independently and inherent truth, whether we can perceive it or not.

No, again, I do not think this is a correct statement. If some one makes an actual claim about something... Then others can try and test the claim. Think about the claim in comparison to other things they know or have details about and see how this (Possibly) new claim fits in.

The current claims for any deity fail when compared to what we know of the reality around us.

However there is also the Theist point of view that the deity is some how 'Outside' our reality. This is great/wonderful...

Now, having moved their deity some 13 odd billion light years away and into the past, they have to adjust their claims as to the how said deity does anything current with IN this reality.

Much cheers to you. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: