Philosophy Now Forum

LOL!!! The universal constants, of course its the magic man in the sky, not an infinity beyond our understanding of time and space and cosmos, no, no no complexity, its the magic man that doesn't live within the boundaries of space/time who, jerking off created the yet unimagined mystery. As Einstein said, "It time for humanity to grow up." The mind is an OPEN system you close it off with a magic man in the sky. It's a duh factor!!!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:59 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:38 pm Most atheists aren't strong atheists.

Oh?

So you think one can be an "Atheist," and believe God may exist?

How is that different from agnosticism? Help me out, here.

You know these answers yourself, feigning ignorance doesn't even work on us lowly atheists. So I imagine God won't have any trouble spotting the dishonesty.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:59 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:38 pm Most atheists aren't strong atheists.

Oh?

So you think one can be an "Atheist," and believe God may exist?

How is that different from agnosticism? Help me out, here.

You know these answers yourself, feigning ignorance doesn't even work on us lowly atheists. So I imagine God won't have any trouble spotting the dishonesty.

If one cannot logically claim to be an atheist, logically one cannot claim to be a believer. It is the same folly, you cannot prove the spaghetti monsters is or is not, but, what's the likelihood?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 5:36 pm But, okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that IC's Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven.

For me, however, the existence of God -- any God -- always brings the discussion back around to this:

...the existence of earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses, the bubonic plaque and hundreds and hundreds of terrible health afflictions.

The Christian God -- any God said to be omniscient and omnipotent -- and theodicy.

Yes, and comments such as yours above always bring me back to the suggestion that we must abandon the silly mythological nonsense handed down to us from ancient humans, and instead focus on the unfathomable order of this vast reality laid out before our senses.

And the point is that if there truly does exist an actual Creator of this unimaginable level of order consisting of trillions upon trillions of suns and planets,...

(potentially [theoretically] created out of the living mental fabric of the Creator's very own being)

...then it is utterly ridiculous of us lower forms of consciousness to try to second-guess the motives of this Being.

In other words, we may not like what we are seeing and experiencing from our lower perspective, but the Creator of the universe may have a perfectly logical reason for allowing for...

...the existence of earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses, the bubonic plaque and hundreds and hundreds of terrible health afflictions.

_______

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 5:49 pm LOL!!! The universal constants, of course its the magic man in the sky, not an infinity beyond our understanding of time and space and cosmos, no, no no complexity, its the magic man that doesn't live within the boundaries of space/time who, jerking off created the yet unimagined mystery. As Einstein said, "It time for humanity to grow up." The mind is an OPEN system you close it off with a magic man in the sky. It's a duh factor!!!

Of course, the drawbacks to this frame of mind are the actual consequences of it.

1] No God, no access to objective morality on this side of the grave. It's not for nothing that Plato and Descartes and Kant and so many other renowned philosophers have linked objective morality to a "transcending font".
2] No God, no immortality and salvation on the other side of it.

That's what God and religion have always been about down through the ages for the overwhelming preponderance of us. Not the "philosophical" or "theological" inquires explored here, but the "for all practical purposes" reality of living in a world and grappling with "how ought I to behave around others?", and "what happens to me after I die?"

Me, I'd very much like to be convinced that the Christian God does in fact exist. That "I" no longer need be "fractured and fragmented" in an essentially meaningless and purposeless world. That "I" will continue on for all of eternity after I die.

And, admittedly, my at times disdainful reaction to those like IC revolves more or less around how utterly unconvincing their "arguments" are.

At least to me.

How can they actually believe what they do...other than because it does comfort and console them to believe it. They believe what they want to be true not what they can demonstrate [even to themselves] is in fact true.

On the other hand, if only I could do that again myself...

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:21 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 5:36 pm But, okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that IC's Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven.

For me, however, the existence of God -- any God -- always brings the discussion back around to this:

...the existence of earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses, the bubonic plaque and hundreds and hundreds of terrible health afflictions.

The Christian God -- any God said to be omniscient and omnipotent -- and theodicy.

Yes, and comments such as yours above always bring me back to the suggestion that we must abandon the silly mythological nonsense handed down to us from ancient humans, and instead focus on the unfathomable order of this vast reality laid out before our senses.

And the point is that if there truly does exist an actual Creator of this unimaginable level of order consisting of trillions upon trillions of suns and planets,...

(potentially [theoretically] created out of the living mental fabric of the Creator's very own being)

...then it is utterly ridiculous of us lower forms of consciousness to try to second-guess the motives of this Being.

In other words, we may not like what we are seeing and experiencing from our lower perspective, but the Creator of the universe may have a perfectly logical reason for allowing for...

...the existence of earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses, the bubonic plaque and hundreds and hundreds of terrible health afflictions.

_______

But as always, the reason could also be negative. For example an omnipotent sadist God might derive pleasure from seeing humans come to terms with the finitude and complete irrelevance of their existence.

Little things please little minds.
And this Pastor has a very very little mind.
Dawkins is not admitting any evidence for God since he does not say that.
We have not been allowed to hear the foregoing, and so have no idea of the context but what Dawkins clearly says is
" If somebody were going to convince me for the NEED for a god, it would be there". so we do not even know where "there" is exactly, but we do know he is not talking about evidence for God. He says that physical constants represent a good argument.
But even if we were to accept this as a good argument, this would not justify any definition of any god heretofore. The weak minded Pastor might be smiling because he damn well knows that Dawkins can be trusted more than his own scriptures which everyone knows - he included are a croc of shite. No physical constant created the universe is six days, nor can it validate baptism.

What we actually have is the cart before the horse. The universe is what it is. There is no argument that is is another way, and the so-called "laws" are nothing of the kind. Its just a description of what is there. The entire edifice of physical science is an vast human conception, and it is that conceit by which we think we have discovered the ghost in the machine, we are so clever we create god.
You cannot extrapolate FROM the universal constant TO the moral sanctions for adultery, abortion, murder or anything else. It's just without merit. It's all very well but what we have here at best is atheistic Spinoza's "GOD".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 5:27 pm ...agnosticism can I mean, I don't know. It can mean, I don't think it can be known.

Those are totally different claims, of course:

"I don't know..." is not "It cannot be known..."

To illustrate, I don't know if the Marianas Trench exists. That does not mean the Marianas Trench does not exist, or even suggest that nobody else can.

Agnosticism actually just says, "I don't know..." It can add an estimate of probability for itself, but it can say no more than that. It can't say, "You can't know," or "X doesn't exist." It doesn't know.

It is not taking a stand on the issue.

That is, indeed what agnosticism is limited to. As I say, to be fair, it can add a probability estimate. But basically, it is a confession of personal ignorance, of one degree or another.

Some atheists consider their being atheists to mean they lack a belief in God. They are not theists. Other atheists are asserting there is no God.

Then they need to be asked, "Do you mean you personally lack a belief," or are you trying to tell other people that they ought to?

If they're saying they only personally lack a belief, then that's just a personal claim. If they're trying to tell anybody else...well, then they owe evidence, don't they? I mean, you don't follow somebody who simply "lacks belief" in a thing, do you? They might be right or they might be wrong to "lack" such a belief; or they may simply "lack" the experience that a person who has the belief has had.

The bald claim "I think there is no God" is not up to much, if that's all Atheism is.

That's why, I suggest, Atheists tend to act like they mean "There IS NO God," until challenged. They need the strength of that claim. They would like to say not just "I personally don't believe in God," but something like "You cannot (logically, rationally, scientifically, or some other way) do so either." They want that power, but aren't up to producing the evidence to warrant it. So they slip back to agnosticism when challenged.

They go from weak to preposterous, and back again, in other words. Dawkins knows this: that's why he says both "God is a delusion," (strong but irrational) and "I'm a 'firm agnostic,'" (much weaker, but safe).

Both, of course, are his public claims.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:59 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:38 pm Most atheists aren't strong atheists.

Oh?

So you think one can be an "Atheist," and believe God may exist?

How is that different from agnosticism? Help me out, here.

You know these answers yourself,

I don't, actually. And you can see I don't.

I'll say exactly what I think. I think Atheism means "No gods, period." I think agnosticism means, "I don't know (for sure) with various degrees."

If you've got any different understanding, then I cannot possibly imagine what it would be. But I'm open to hearing how you think about it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:30 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:59 pm
Oh?

So you think one can be an "Atheist," and believe God may exist?

How is that different from agnosticism? Help me out, here.

You know these answers yourself,

I don't, actually. And you can see I don't.

I'll say exactly what I think. I think Atheism means "No gods, period." I think agnosticism means, "I don't know (for sure) with various degrees."

If you've got any different understanding, then I cannot possibly imagine what it would be. But I'm open to hearing how you think about it.

So you've been debating atheists for who knows how long, but you don't know what atheism means.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:30 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:05 pm
You know these answers yourself,

I don't, actually. And you can see I don't.

I'll say exactly what I think. I think Atheism means "No gods, period." I think agnosticism means, "I don't know (for sure) with various degrees."

If you've got any different understanding, then I cannot possibly imagine what it would be. But I'm open to hearing how you think about it.

So you've been debating atheists for who knows how long, but you don't know what atheism means.

I do. It's they who struggle with it.

For reasons I've outlined in my previous messages, they want to both say, "There's no God," AND to say "I'm only saying I don't know." But those are incommensurable statements -- if they "don't know," then they can't say "God's a delusion."

So what they need is to clear up their own double-speak, and say what it is they really stand for.

What does Atheism really mean? I can answer that: if it means both of their favourite claims, it means incoherence.

So I know: but do they?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:40 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:30 pm
I don't, actually. And you can see I don't.

I'll say exactly what I think. I think Atheism means "No gods, period." I think agnosticism means, "I don't know (for sure) with various degrees."

If you've got any different understanding, then I cannot possibly imagine what it would be. But I'm open to hearing how you think about it.

So you've been debating atheists for who knows how long, but you don't know what atheism means.

I do. It's they who struggle with it.

For reasons I've outlined in my previous messages, they want to both say, "There's no God," AND to say "I'm only saying I don't know." But those are incommensurable statements -- if they "don't know," then they can't say "God's a delusion."

So what they need is to clear up their own double-speak, and say what it is they really stand for.

What does Atheism really mean? I can answer that: if it means both of their favourite claims, it means incoherence.

So I know: but do they?

Yep, surely atheists couldn't resolve an apparent inconsistency, it's too much for them.

Both belief and disbelief are the same folly neither should claim what is unknowable. The arrogant/ignorant state they know what the mystery is, it is a magic man in the sky.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 9:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:40 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:32 pm
So you've been debating atheists for who knows how long, but you don't know what atheism means.

I do. It's they who struggle with it.

For reasons I've outlined in my previous messages, they want to both say, "There's no God," AND to say "I'm only saying I don't know." But those are incommensurable statements -- if they "don't know," then they can't say "God's a delusion."

So what they need is to clear up their own double-speak, and say what it is they really stand for.

What does Atheism really mean? I can answer that: if it means both of their favourite claims, it means incoherence.

So I know: but do they?

Yep, surely atheists couldn't resolve an apparent inconsistency, it's too much for them.

I'm fine if there's a way they can.

I've just never seen it, and can't imagine how they'd do it.

So maybe you're right.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:08 pm ...what is unknowable...

Interesting.

How do you know "what is unknowable"?

You might say, "I personally don't know if there is a God." That would be fair.

How would you know that "Whether there is a God or not is unknowable?"