For theists who do this, I think their faith is actually LESS important to them than their image of being personally "right" -- because there should be no reason to ignore directly relevant thought-provoking questions and exploration for truth UNLESS they are protecting THEMSELVES from being shown to be wrong. For these theists, it's about human ego, not divine faith.
Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
Re: Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
Re: Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
Funny video. How does it connect?uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 1:53 pmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzcReflex wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 1:53 amWhy?uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 3:29 pm I am an atheist. I do say "I don't believe God exists but it's at least possible". I understand the argument very well and if Plantinga's definition of God is such that it makes his argument valid, then it is meaningless and there is no compulsion for any atheist to change their mind.
Last edited by Reflex on Tue May 15, 2018 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
What are you, then? 3? A five-year old could see you backed up my claim for me, even concluding with 0% or hundred percent.-1- wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 1:26 pmReflex, you are not talking to five-year-old children. You are not backing up what you claim. Your words are empty. Your opinion is worthless as something to consider by others, although they may be important to you.
You just make statements without any depth, credibility or convincing power.
You have the right to live in your own world. But in the world of philosophy you just don't cut the mustard.
Re: Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
Greta:
Do you see the humor in any of this? I find it rather entertaining.
Do you see the humor in any of this? I find it rather entertaining.
Re: Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
It's this again:
But since it has gone over your head twice already, I thought I'd dumb it down for you.uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 3:29 pmFor this to work, you have to assume some sort of modal realism. David Lewis for example did, basically he asserted that a possible world is as real as the real world. This is essentially the claim made in the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics, but you have your work cut out to prove it is the case and you cannot claim that an argument is sound when one of the premises is clearly hypothetical.This begs the question. You cannot conclude that God exists in all possible worlds without assuming it to be the case. How can you rule out possible worlds in which God doesn't exist?
Re: Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
So does this mean you're only a theist in sheep's clothing and all this god crap is nothing more than a Love's Labour's Lost comedy routine?
Tragically you're talent for comedy or logic is radically foreshortened to your expertise in hypocrisy and snot-nosed replies; your usual path of least resistance. Do you feel so inferior that you need an ally?
Re: Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
What you say is true to a point. Whether theist or not, I think you’ll agree, we all have a certain amount of ego investment in the arguments we make. In any honest debate however, intelligence requires we retreat when facts or logic yields a greater probability of one argument being superior to the other. The mind-set of a theist is incapable of this compromise retaining a granite position of their unassailable truths against all odds.Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 3:10 pmFor theists who do this, I think their faith is actually LESS important to them than their image of being personally "right" -- because there should be no reason to ignore directly relevant thought-provoking questions and exploration for truth UNLESS they are protecting THEMSELVES from being shown to be wrong. For these theists, it's about human ego, not divine faith.
There is something inherently toxic about the subject of god which distorts the human ego to forgo any alternatives by any means necessary. It’s this which causes theists to be the greatest hypocrites and liars beyond most of the “secular” specimens they continuously rail against.
Re: Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
Sorry, Uwot. You do NOT understand the argument because you are imposing your idea of God rather than applying Plantinga’s. The question you have yet to address is what makes his idea “meaningless.”
You see, I think theists do a disservice to believers and non-believers alike when they exaggerate the importance of logical arguments. Doing so is a kind of idolatry. I play the game because it’s fun. There’s no convincing skeptics that “By love he may be gotten and holden, by thought never,” that it’s not about logical argument or beliefs at all, so why not have fun with it? The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master. Watching it play the role of master is, indeed, a kind of comedy routine.
In wolf’s clothing, actually, or maybe a laughing hyena’s because I do see all this argumentation this as a kind of comedy routine.
You see, I think theists do a disservice to believers and non-believers alike when they exaggerate the importance of logical arguments. Doing so is a kind of idolatry. I play the game because it’s fun. There’s no convincing skeptics that “By love he may be gotten and holden, by thought never,” that it’s not about logical argument or beliefs at all, so why not have fun with it? The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master. Watching it play the role of master is, indeed, a kind of comedy routine.
Re: Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
Yes! Attempts to prove god’s existence is more likely to expunge it completely compared to simply believing in one which has a longer future. In the latter case, logic doesn’t apply but when extended where it no-longer belongs, it accomplishes the opposite.
Well put! Nothing to disagree with here. It well expresses our “default” position on planet Earth.-1- wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 1:46 pmWhile I acknowledge that god and/or gods may or may not exist, I also insist that humans ought not to attach qualities to god. We have no evidence of god's qualities at all. Whatever we experience in life and by inquiry, can be explained by a god-belief, and also without a god-belief. There is nothing humans know about that we can say with certainly "this has got to be god" or "this has got to be god's work". Without such evidence, and in the lack of any other evidence, attributing any qualities to god is mere fiction, speculation, and thus philosophically invalid.
Re: Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
Okay, good to know! You're playing an SNL game so nothing you write on this thread needs to be taken seriously. You just don't sound like a comedian! Maybe you need more practice!Reflex wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 10:06 pmIn wolf’s clothing, actually, or maybe a laughing hyena’s because I do see all this argumentation this as a kind of comedy routine.
You see, I think theists do a disservice to believers and non-believers alike when they exaggerate the importance of logical arguments. Doing so is a kind of idolatry. I play the game because it’s fun. There’s no convincing skeptics that “By love he may be gotten and holden, by thought never,” that it’s not about logical argument or beliefs at all, so why not have fun with it? The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master. Watching it play the role of master is, indeed, a kind of comedy routine.
Re: Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
Just because you call it BS doesn't mean it is. The latter is a reasonable position if not taken literally and misinterpreted as formal logical rather than an approximation of a probabilistic position.
Re: Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
This is why it's fun, Greta. Skeptics claim to have the logical high ground, but when it come to actually using logic, it all turns to mush whether it's the ontological argument or acknowledging the logical consequences of atheism.
I will admit, however, that even Disneyland gets boring after a while.
Re: Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
This logic series hinges entirely on the vagaries of language, in this case the word "possible". It is actually only the openness, detail and pedantry of the scientific method that allows the argument to be made - so odds of 50/50 or a 10¹⁰⁰/1 each fit under the umbrella of "possible".Reflex wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 10:06 amAh, if it were only so simple as many skeptics seem to think. Here's a video of Plantinga himself (among others talking about the ontological argument) explaining his thoughts:
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/arguing-god-being
It is a different discussion - Biblical literalistm vs rationality. To be fair, if there were not so many dimwits interfering with the conduct of education and medicine based on literalist interpretations of the Bible, the "New Atheists" would not have left their pleasant labs and studies to debunk that literalism (and now there's also climate change denial and Flat Earthism).Reflex wrote:It's kinda funny. More than one theologian has expressed dismay at the "New Atheists" being much like religious fundamentalists in that department. I think we should put them both on a shelf and let them fight among themselves.I have long thought the creation passages of Genesis were really just some clever ancient fellow noticing how everything evolves and trying to describe his insight. Metaphor and poetry were the only means with which to communicate such ideas before scientific terminology. More than once I have wondered if the writer of that passage would have laughed or put his head in his hands if he knew how many people took him literally!
The more complex and provocative discussion is the one we are having. Speaking of which, how about the subjectivity angle? After death, do you see potential continued, interrupted or discontinued posthumous subjectivity based on any factors?
Re: Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?
What are the logical consequences of atheism aside from not attending church and missing out on some potential helpful placebo effects?Reflex wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 11:07 pmThis is why it's fun, Greta. Skeptics claim to have the logical high ground, but when it come to actually using logic, it all turns to mush whether it's the ontological argument or acknowledging the logical consequences of atheism.
I will admit, however, that even Disneyland gets boring after a while.