The God Debates
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-06-2012, 12:45 PM
RE: The God Debates
(21-06-2012 12:32 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas.

So if you have no proof that there are no Gods, then what was that overwhelming evidence against God you referred to before?

That genuinely confuses me.

Also, I know that you're comfortable self-identifying as an Atheist. I'm wondering what you think about people who don't, specifically, what not believing there is any evidence against the existence of God might have to do with it (keeping in mind that I'm still genuinely confused by what you mean about proof and evidence).

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Proof and evidence are not the same thing. A proof is incontrovertible, evidence is just support for a contention.

I will answer your question with a question.
What does an agnostic answer when asked "Do you believe in God?"

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2012, 01:40 PM
RE: The God Debates
Hey, Chas.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God, would be the general answer. My particular answer would be that God simultaneously exists and does not exist.

I'm not sure where you're going with this though.

I suppose that we agree that there is no proof, but we disagree about the existence of evidence.

So. Assuming that there are others who, unlike you, don't believe in the existence of any anti-God evidence, do you think there is a connection between that belief and not wanting to be called an Atheist?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2012, 04:24 PM
RE: The God Debates
(21-06-2012 01:40 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God, would be the general answer. My particular answer would be that God simultaneously exists and does not exist.

I'm not sure where you're going with this though.

I suppose that we agree that there is no proof, but we disagree about the existence of evidence.

So. Assuming that there are others who, unlike you, don't believe in the existence of any anti-God evidence, do you think there is a connection between that belief and not wanting to be called an Atheist?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
I think it likely that someone who thinks of himself as a pure agnostic would not want to be misclassed as atheist.
But I think that is only the case if one understands atheism as a denial of the existence of gods as opposed to simply being without belief in gods. An agnostic lives without a belief in gods.

I'm not a fan of the Copenhagen-ish simultaneous existence/non-existence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2012, 07:20 PM
RE: The God Debates
The words we use have value and definition. If you want to ignore the definition of existence, I suppose you may do so, but when you say that something simultaneously exists and does not exist, then there is a break down of definition and your words become meaningless.

It's like standing at the south pole and trying to point in a direction south of the south pole.

Words have meaning and how we use them matters.

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
21-06-2012, 08:45 PM
RE: The God Debates
(21-06-2012 07:20 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  The words we use have value and definition. If you want to ignore the definition of existence, I suppose you may do so, but when you say that something simultaneously exists and does not exist, then there is a break down of definition and your words become meaningless.

It's like standing at the south pole and trying to point in a direction south of the south pole.

Words have meaning and how we use them matters.
First we had thoughts.
Then we formed sounds to relate our thoughts to others.
Now we argued over the meaning of the sounds.
...any thoughts?

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2012, 11:19 PM
RE: The God Debates
Hey, Rahn.

Not to be too testy, but it's late and I can't fucking sleep and I'm cranky.

The issue has nothing to do with definition. It's a question of quantum mechanics that you may not be familiar with.

And definitions evolve. They aren't fixed. So don't go all sacred cow on me. The dream of perfect communication, as the term is known, was debunked decades ago.

Note: in 1984, one of Big Brother's main goals was to reduce language down to a single word; they were on the 10th edition of the Newspeak dictionary if I recall. Just a reminder of how the tight control of definition is a matter of power and control and not at all a matter of effective communication. Communications theory is waaaaaaaaaay more complex than that.

Fuck me in the goat ass. Maybe Colbert will put me to sleep.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2012, 11:50 PM
RE: The God Debates
I knew you were referring to a quantum state super position in which the atoms of a metal can be shown to be vibrating and not vibrating, in essence they were detecting movement and non-movement coming from the same atoms, but an atom isn't a thing. Not in the way we think of things at least.
Video explaining the quantum super position - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvYYYlgVAao

It isn't just a very small ball of matter. It's much more complicated than I could ever attempt to explain and I have no issue with matter that exhibits two different behaviors at the same time, but you used the word "exist" and "not exist".

As I think about what that can mean, I can possibly and easily say that I exist in my house right now and I don't exist in all other places in the universe (as far as I know)
So if you meant that a god exists in one location and doesn't exist in all locations, I can understand that from a spacial point of view, but the word "exist" does carry with it a certain meaning. Existence is something that has certain measurable values and I'm sure others can add to that definition. Something that doesn't exist, I would think, has the value of zero for all measurable values.

So far any god has a zero for all measurable values. Meaning "doesn't exist"

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
21-06-2012, 11:51 PM
RE: The God Debates
I'm more of a hard atheist. I don't think there is a god as defined by any religion.

So I tend to disbelieve.

But I try not to debate theists. I let them be, but if I could give them one gift it would be the ability to question their beliefs, in an honest manner.

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-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2012, 12:16 AM
RE: The God Debates
Found this on my twitter feed and thought it would be funny in the god debates thread.

http://i.imgur.com/H9n87.jpg

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
22-06-2012, 12:33 AM
RE: The God Debates
I think if you are to claim that a God is in a superposition of exists/non-exists then that is a truth statement that requires evidence. On the face of it I would have thought that would be inconsistent with a hard agnostic world view. Was this statement meant to describe reality, or simply to be obtuse?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: