Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:47 pm The claim, "God is a rainbow unicorn" and "God is a flying teapot" have very, very low chances of being right.

How do you know? If you are quite certain that this is true, that just makes yet another subset that has the same chance of being right or wrong as the others. (+/- 0)

The saying "God is everything" actually has a zero chance of being right.

Yes, that's another one.

But the statement, "God is the Supreme Being," (assuming God exists, of course) has such a high chance of being right that it's almost analytically true. In fact, it would be harder to imagine there being a God and Him being being something less than the Supreme Being than to imagine Him as being that.

An excellent subset!
Right along with "God is a rainbow unicorn (assuming the divine rainbow unicorn exists, of course)" which is also 100% probable.
....assuming, of course....

In point of niggle, everything anybody can say about an imaginary entity has the same probability of being right - whatever you're imagining as god can be your god.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:24 pm "All creation" contains within it a subset of "personal experience" thus contradicting being as driven by an impersonal force.

God is a contradiction

Skip wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 12:10 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:47 pm The claim, "God is a rainbow unicorn" and "God is a flying teapot" have very, very low chances of being right.

How do you know?

Because analytically, the term "God" doesn't even correspond to either or those definitions, and empirically, such things do not exist. So their probability is considerably lower than an analytically-relevant or empirically plausible definitions.

The saying "God is everything" actually has a zero chance of being right.

Yes, that's another one.

Well, it has a distinctive fault: that of being outright self-contradictory, which at least the rainbow unicorn or teapot don't have, whatever else their faults.

In point of niggle, everything anybody can say about an imaginary entity has the same probability of being right - whatever you're imagining as god can be your god.

"Imaginary entity," you say?

Well, you must have some reason for being so confident as to classify God as that. What is your reasoning?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:19 pm [How do you know?

Because analytically, the term "God" doesn't even correspond to either or those definitions, and empirically, such things do not exist. So their probability is considerably lower than an analytically-relevant or empirically plausible definitions. [/quote]

Well, you must have some reason for being so confident as to classify God as that. What is your reasoning?

Because, analytically, the term "God" can correspond to any definition the originator(s) of any particular god concept wish to use and empirically, such things do not exist. So their probability is precisely the same as that of any other analytically-irrelevant or empirically implausible definition.

Skip wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 5:56 pm

Well, you must have some reason for being so confident as to classify God as that. What is your reasoning?

Because, analytically, the term "God" can correspond to any definition...

Well, "analytically" means "by definition."

What I'm suggesting is that the term "God" is analytically, "Supreme Being". The term "gods," small "g", can refer to anything, but it's a different concept.

By definition, there can only be one Supreme Being...assuming such exists, of course, which is an empirical question. And "unicorn" or "teapot" are limited, contingent beings. Different concepts, then. And empirically, flying teapots and rainbow unicorns don't -- to our empirical knowledge -- exist. But we do not know the same about God, do we?

Or, if you think you do, I'm asking you for your reasoning as to why you are so confident that God is an "imaginary being," rather than an empirical reality.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:04 pm What I'm suggesting is that the term "God" is analytically, "Supreme Being".

A god is a god is a god, whether you capitalize it or not. Just because other cultures had the consideration to give their gods names and the Roman Empire dropped the Hebrew name of their adopted god when they promoted him, he doesn't suddenly become a whole new concept.

By definition, there can only be one Supreme Being

That would be true, if there could ever be a supreme being.

...assuming such exists,

There you go again! Why should any such silliness be assumed?

of course, which is an empirical question. And "unicorn" or "teapot" are limited, contingent beings.

Limited and different in kind. Teapots have been credibly recorded in the mundane world. Unicorns and gods have not.

And empirically, flying teapots and rainbow unicorns don't -- to our empirical knowledge -- exist.

While an actual, empirically testable teapot can be made to fly, the unicorn would have to be physically captured before it could be fitted with a rainbow. Different concepts.

But we do not know the same about God, do we?

We know that it's never been photographed or captured in the wild - much like a unicorn.

I'm asking you for your reasoning as to why you are so confident that God is an "imaginary being," rather than an empirical reality.

Have you seen any objectively verifiable evidence? If so, please produce it.

Skip wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:03 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:04 pm What I'm suggesting is that the term "God" is analytically, "Supreme Being".

A god is a god is a god, whether you capitalize it or not. Just because other cultures had the consideration to give their gods names and the Roman Empire dropped the Hebrew name of their adopted god when they promoted him, he doesn't suddenly become a whole new concept.

Actually, it does. Are you unfamiliar with the convention of distinguishing the two with a capital?

By definition, there can only be one Supreme Being

That would be true, if there could ever be a supreme being.

Yes, conceptually, there could only ever be one such...and if, as you say, there is a reason a Supreme Being could not exist, I'm willing to hear it. But I have not heard any such reason yet.

...assuming such exists,

There you go again! Why should any such silliness be assumed?

I'm not saying you have to assume it. I'm saying we're discussing what would be the case IF such a Being exists. Hypotheticals are a normal part of discourse.

But if, as you say, it's "silliness," I await your reasons for saying so.

But we do not know the same about God, do we?

We know that it's never been photographed or captured in the wild - much like a unicorn.

Your expectation is that if a Supreme Being exists, you'd be able to "capture" Him? It would seem, on the contrary, that if you ever did "capture" Him, that would be proof positive that the Supreme Being was you...for who "captures" God?

I'm asking you for your reasoning as to why you are so confident that God is an "imaginary being," rather than an empirical reality.

Have you seen any objectively verifiable evidence? If so, please produce it.

Yes. And I will.

But I'm awaiting your reasons for saying that God is "imaginary," or "silliness," or "could not be." Those are strong claims of certainty, it seems to me; they would require some sort of concommitant evidence, if we are to think them to be rationally asserted.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:10 pm

Skip wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:03 am Have you seen any objectively verifiable evidence? If so, please produce it.

Yes. And I will.

But I'm awaiting your reasons for saying...

Mr. Can appears to be incapable of giving up his sleazy bullshit: distortion and detouring, his tools of avoiding truth and accountability. There's no reason he wouldn't produce objectively verifiable evidence readily/already regardless of what anybody else's reasons are for what they say. All delusional and/or dishonest people making claims about knowing a god say things like "I can and I will"... but they do not do so. Instead, they point to others as needing to do/see something first. It's a dishonest game and it's absurd. It's a wonder why Mr. Can continues such a self-serving farce when it's so obviously seen. His ego must be monstrously large, to be maintained so... under the guise of all that is holy. (That ego is what we're talking to.)

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 3:36 pm There's no reason he wouldn't produce objectively verifiable evidence readily/already

Well, those who actually read more of what I've written know I already have, in several previous conversations, actually. But I'm happy to reproduce it here, eventually.

First, I want to know what the evidence against is considered to be. For that is what it will all weigh against, presumably.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 3:54 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 3:36 pm There's no reason he wouldn't produce objectively verifiable evidence readily/already

Well, those who actually read more of what I've written know I already have, in several previous conversations, actually. But I'm happy to reproduce it here, eventually.

First, I want to know what the evidence against is considered to be. For that is what it will all weigh against, presumably.

Another phrase: "I already have". Bullshit. Surely you can easily point to it or do it now, as you're being asked about right now for this discussion. And who are these imaginary people who have seen it?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:04 pm Another phrase: "I already have". Bullshit.

Go back and look, if you care.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:18 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:04 pm Another phrase: "I already have". Bullshit.

Go back and look, if you care.

Where?

Simply claiming that what you say is objective, verifiable evidence is not the same as it being so. You seem to be under the impression that what you think and say is the truth, and therefore, that’s good enough to prove/believe anything you think or say. That may be fine for you; that’s your own trip; that’s the bubble you operate in. It is your ego, however, that imagines that what you think is some kind of ultimate, over-arching truth that everyone else should believe too -– thereby making you “right”, and something of an authority. Such are the traits of men who imagine/make gods unto themselves, and then act as gods through such constructs.

It's reasonable to believe in the Absolute and in the eternal now.

Some people believe that the Absolute is also a Person i.e. God.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:18 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:04 pm Another phrase: "I already have". Bullshit.

Go back and look, if you care.

Where?

Several places. But I'm not investing the time to go back, because if you knew, you'd know, and if you don't care, you don't care. I don't dance every time a cynic barks.

You can satisfy yourself another way, though: you can wait for the requested response, and then see what evidence I produce, as promised. And that will save you the search.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:33 pm Some people believe that the Absolute is also a Person i.e. God.

Yes, that would be me.

But I don't call Him "the Absolute," because that is misleading and abstract, rather than informative.