Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-08-2015, 07:40 AM
Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 07:39 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 07:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  The use of the word "unintentional" where there is no intentionality possible would be redundant.

But if one *did* say it was unintentional it would then imply that there *might* be intention behind other events and the question becomes, just *who* intends these other implied intentional events, naturally the answer is *Jesus Christ*, the Son of the Most High God, who got nailed to some dead evolved ligneous matter 2000 years ago to save you from your *sins*, sins being acts which piss of an invisible being who will *hurt you forever* if you don't *believe* the guy telling you all this. Incidentally that'll be 10% of your salary not to get burned eternally, pay now, we're having a discount this month.

I don't know if they stole the gym membership model, of vice versa. Consider

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 07:42 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 07:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 07:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  In the absence of intentionality, there are events.

Events which are unintentional, and without apparent or deliberate cause.

No. There may well be apparent cause.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-08-2015, 07:42 AM
Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 07:39 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 07:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  The use of the word "unintentional" where there is no intentionality possible would be redundant.

But if one *did* say it was unintentional it would then imply that there *might* be intention behind other events and the question becomes, just *who* intends these other implied intentional events, naturally the answer is *Jesus Christ*, the Son of the Most High God, who got nailed to some dead evolved ligneous matter 2000 years ago to save you from your *sins*, sins being acts which piss of an invisible being who will *hurt you forever* if you don't *believe* the guy telling you all this. Incidentally that'll be 10% of your salary not to get burned eternally, pay now, we're having a discount this month.

[Image: 288d55fc9a4d0a539d0592a6c52cd17e.jpg]

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 07:43 AM
Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 07:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 07:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Events which are unintentional, and without apparent or deliberate cause.

No. There may well be apparent cause.

That is still without intention because the cause has no intentions, making it incapable of accidents.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 08:04 AM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2015 08:16 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 07:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 07:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Events which are unintentional, and without apparent or deliberate cause.

No. There may well be apparent cause.

Okay, but yet not deliberate or intentional. They may well be apparent, but not deliberate, or intentional.

My analysis of this entire discussion, is that it's primary semantic, but even more so a desire for euphemism.

The argument goes, accident is too strong of a word, that need to be replaced by softer phrasing like "absence of intentionality". It's sort of like trying to argue that we shouldn't use the word death, but replace it with "resting". There's no meaningful distinction being made, it's entirely a political ploy.

What do you think is actually being implied by referring to an event as "accidental", as opposed to an event that's "absent of intentionality"? I'd wager that whatever you're trying to imply by this, is not all that different that what's being implied by me, though we would word it differently.

The point of referring to it as accidental, is to say it wasn't intentional. If I stepped on my wife foot accidentally, it means it was unintentional not deliberate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 08:07 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 06:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-08-2015 03:56 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Superman and Santa are clearly and obviously invented characters. In my opinion, so is God, but belief in God is much more deeply entrenched in our culture, and its origins go much farther back. There are also metaphysical questions (first cause and the like) that muddy the waters. So I can say that Superman and Santa don't exist with significantly more confidence than I can say the same about God (in the abstract "first cause" sense). However, I am very close to 100% certain that the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible is fictional.


While you may be more confident in your belief about the non-existence of the Judeo-Christian God, it's not very clear if you with some confidence believe that an "abstract first cause" sense" does not exist?

Do you have no confidence one way or the other? Is that what you mean by "entertaining the possibility"?

A common godless alternative to a first cause, is that we're a product not of any prime mover, but a series of physical accidents, in this regard do you find yourself on the fence about? Not in one corner or the other, but squarely down the middle somewhere?

When I read through "first cause" or "prime mover" arguments, I tend to find them unconvincing. They generally rely on the absurdity of an infinite regress of cause, but then conclude the equal absurdity of an immaterial intelligence that somehow causes matter to exist and move. I cannot comprehend either of those absurdities, but I'm willing to concede that there are some things that are simply beyond my understanding.

On the other hand, and for the same reasons, I cannot refute these arguments. So I remain open-minded. Does a "first cause" exist, or is there an infinite regress of cause, or do we simply not fully understand the concept of "cause"? I can honestly say "I don't know". And I'm OK with that answer. I don't have to know everything. I don't have to have all the answers.

Quote:
Quote:As for science, there are some questions it is simply not equipped to answer. Does God exist? What is the best form of government? Whose music is "better": Bach or Beethoven (and what about Duke Ellington or the Beatles?)? Is the continuum hypothesis true or not? Rosenberg believes (or claims to believe) that everything reduces to science. I think he's wrong. That's why we have philosophy.

Rosenberg will likely conclude that "best" rather than being a descriptor of any external reality, is one merely of subjective preference. While science couldn't not tell you which music is better, it could tell you why you think it's better, why it appeals to you the way it does. Or in other words, it best because you like it more.

It's a bit trickier than that. Before you can say what is best, or even what I think is best, you have to define what it means to be better or best. That's more difficult than you might think. How do you assign value to a piece of music or a system of government? I have to confess that again, "I don't know". I can't tell you whether Beethoven's music is better than Duke Ellington's. The most difficult part of philosophy is defining your terms. Good luck with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
06-08-2015, 08:14 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 08:04 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 07:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  No. There may well be apparent cause.

Okay, but yet not deliberate or intentional. They may well be apparent, but not deliberate, or intentional.

My analysis of this entire discussion, is that it's primary semantic, but even more so a desire for euphemism.

It is about communication; choosing the appropriate word. "Accident" is not the appropriate word where there is no intentionality.

Quote:The argument goes, accident is too strong of word,

No, it is just the wrong word.

Quote:that need to be replaced by soft phrasing like "absence of intentionality".

No, the correct word is "event".

Quote:It's sort of like trying to argue that we shouldn't use the word death, but replace it with "resting". There's no meaningful distinction being made, it's entirely a political ploy.

No, it is nothing like that.

Quote:What do you think is actually being implied by referring to an event as "accidental", as opposed to an event that's "absent of intentionality"? I'd wager that whatever you trying to imply by this, is not all that different that what's being implied by me, though we would word it differently.

"Accident" implies that the event could have or should have been prevented or avoided.

Quote:The point of referring to it as accidental, is to say it wasn't intentional. If I stepped on my wife foot accidentally, it means it was unintentional not deliberate.

Right - because it could have been intentional. That is the difference.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-08-2015, 08:29 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 08:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is about communication; choosing the appropriate word. "Accident" is not the appropriate word where there is no intentionality.

No, it’s not grammatically inappropriate. You know that right?

Quote:No, it is just the wrong word.

No, it’s not grammatically wrong. It’s correctly applied in the colloquial, commonly understood meaning of the word. When one is applying the same implications of this common meaning, it’s an entirely accurate use of the word.

Quote: No, the correct word is "event”.

No, we’re qualify the event. Some events are “absent of intentionality”, some are not. Some events are accidents, some events are not.

Quote:"Accident" implies that the event could have or should have been prevented or avoided.

Some accidents should have been prevented or avoided, some might even be fortuitous.

Quote:Right - because it could have been intentional. That is the difference.

So could the universe duh, that the basis premise of the anthropic principle, of design arguments etc… The arguments against intentionality here, is one that is an argument that it was “accidental”, in the same way stepping on my wife’s foot was, that it was product void of intention, or deliberation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 08:43 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 08:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 08:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is about communication; choosing the appropriate word. "Accident" is not the appropriate word where there is no intentionality.

No, it’s not grammatically inappropriate. You know that right?

It is semantically inappropriate.

Quote:
Quote:No, it is just the wrong word.

No, it’s not grammatically wrong. It’s correctly applied in the colloquial, commonly understood meaning of the word. When one is applying the same implications of this common meaning, it’s an entirely accurate use of the word.

It is semantically inaccurate.

Quote:
Quote: No, the correct word is "event”.

No, we’re qualify the event. Some events are “absent of intentionality”, some are not. Some events are accidents, some events are not.

There is no qualification necessary or appropriate in the absence of the possibility of intentionality.

Quote:
Quote:"Accident" implies that the event could have or should have been prevented or avoided.

Some accidents should have been prevented or avoided, some might even be fortuitous.

That utterly missed the point. When there is no intentionality possible, no accident is possible - only events.

Quote:
Quote:Right - because it could have been intentional. That is the difference.

So could the universe duh, that the basis premise of the anthropic principle, of design arguments etc… The arguments against intentionality here, is one that is an argument that it was “accidental”, in the same way stepping on my wife’s foot was, that it was product void of intention, or deliberation.

The anthropic principle is horseshit. It has the cart before the horse.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-08-2015, 08:53 AM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2015 10:36 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 08:07 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  When I read through "first cause" or "prime mover" arguments, I tend to find them unconvincing. They generally rely on the absurdity of an infinite regress of cause, but then conclude the equal absurdity of an immaterial intelligence that somehow causes matter to exist and move. I cannot comprehend either of those absurdities, but I'm willing to concede that there are some things that are simply beyond my understanding.

On the other hand, and for the same reasons, I cannot refute these arguments. So I remain open-minded. Does a "first cause" exist, or is there an infinite regress of cause, or do we simply not fully understand the concept of "cause"? I can honestly say "I don't know". And I'm OK with that answer. I don't have to know everything. I don't have to have all the answers.

Is this also how you feel about a materialistic picture of the world as well, one that would negate a first cause?

Would you also say that you “don’t know” to certain materialistic pictures of the world, that that we’re product of unintentional, non-deliberate forces? Or in the words, that we’re a product of a series of physical accidents. Do you find yourself not particularly confident in hold to such views? Would you say you "don't know" here as well?

If so, where as your uncertainty regarding the first cause is predicated on not fully understanding the concept, would your lack of belief in this strong atheistic picture, like that often proposed by folks like Rosenberg, be based less on not understanding it, but more so on not finding it entirely convincing?

Quote:It's a bit trickier than that. Before you can say what is best, or even what I think is best, you have to define what it means to be better or best. That's more difficult than you might think. How do you assign value to a piece of music or a system of government? I have to confess that again, "I don't know". I can't tell you whether Beethoven's music is better than Duke Ellington's. The most difficult part of philosophy is defining your terms. Good luck with that.

i think the problems here would be, that there is no universal meaning for “best”, at best we can only define what it means for you, or for certain other people. And secondly what makes something “best” for you, might be less a product of rational deliberation, and a matter of attraction. You could be attracted to something, and not really know why you do. And whatever reasons you think you do, might not even be the real reasons. While science might not be able to determine what’s “best”, it can likely show or reveal why people find something to be the “best”, like why are bears attracted to honey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: