|
Author
|
Topic: Identifying false religions.
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 215 of 479 (568980)
07-19-2010 12:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 213 by bluegenes
07-19-2010 11:09 AM
|
|
Re: Analogy?!!!
bluegenes writes: This ends up as "I believe in something, but I cannot know what it is". There wouldn't be a word for it. And if a word was given to it, it would be meaningless. One thing that may be beyond the imagination is pure complete nothing. Not quite. I can assign a name to it, for example "GOD". I can also assign some characteristics to it, for example "The Creator of all that is, seen and unseen." Just as I can imagine a perfectly straight line, I can imagine "GOD", but there are limits. If someone asks me to go much beyond generalities, I get stumped. If someone asks me for proof, I can offer none. But that also does not preclude the Gods and gods folk worship from representing some real entity.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 213 by bluegenes, posted 07-19-2010 11:09 AM | | bluegenes has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 217 of 479 (568987)
07-19-2010 12:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 216 by bluegenes
07-19-2010 12:55 PM
|
|
Re: Analogy?!!!
"Creators" are things we can imagine. A creator of all things seen and unseen would have created itself, and written this post. That might be stretching the imagination. Nonsense, it could also be a real entity.
On the topic, any individual described religion involving supernatural beings should be considered very likely to be false as the default position. Okay, but that still has nothing to do with GOD. Sheesh.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 216 by bluegenes, posted 07-19-2010 12:55 PM | | bluegenes has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Analogy?!!!
It's you who suggested that things that folks worshipped might have something to do with a real entity you call GOD, not me. Sheesh. No, that's not what I said. I said that the gods or Gods folk imagine could actually represent something that really existed. A religion is a human creation. But that says nothing about the reality of any god, God or GOD. The topic is "Identifying false religions" and so has nothing to do with any real GOD. It's entirely possible though that some of the gods being marketed could represent real gods. If that were shown to be true then we, as humans, need to decide whether or not to accept, respect, worship or oppose that or those real gods. For example, it is entirely possible (although I personally think highly unlikely) that the god Buzsaw tries to market might turn out to be real. In that case, if the evidence is convincing I see no option but to accept the god. However the god Buzsaw markets is not worthy of my respect, certainly not worthy of worship and I think it is definitely something that should be opposed.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 218 by bluegenes, posted 07-19-2010 1:14 PM | | bluegenes has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 221 of 479 (568999)
07-19-2010 5:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 220 by Rahvin
07-19-2010 3:37 PM
|
|
Re: Analogy?!!!
Rahvin writes: Forgive me, Jar, but what you just said quite explicitly means that you cannot imagine this "god" thing. You're able to say that "god" is supposed to be the "creator of all that is," but that's not actually a property of this "god" thing. It's nothing more than a mysterious answer to a mysterious question. Your "god" leaves us exactly as ignorant regarding the mysteries of the origin of reality (if there is such a thing) as we were before you used the term. Well, of course it is a property of this thing; this thing is that which created all that is, seen and unseen. Of course it leaves us ignorant "regarding the mysteries of the origin of reality (if there is such a thing) as we were before you used the term. I have not only said that ever since I've been at EvC, I have repeated it here even since I've been back. It tells us nothing about "how", only "who".
Rahvin writes: If you ask how the Universe came to be, do you have more or less information by answering "phlogiston," "magic," "marklar," or "god?" Perhaps one satisfies your curiosity more, but do you actually have more information about the origins of the Universe by using any of those answers? Huh? Irrelevant word salad! Please read what I write. I defined GOD as the Creator of all that is, seen and unseen. Go back and reread what I write. Nowhere will you find me saying "How the world got here is by God creating the world." How is an entirely different question than who. How all that is, seen and unseen was created is a question of science. Who did it is a question of belief and theology. Edited by jar, : left out the quote I was replying too.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 220 by Rahvin, posted 07-19-2010 3:37 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
Straggler writes: Straggler writes: You can of course internally define your internal concept of GOD in any way you find personally appealing. However your concept of GOD - This immaterial and undetectable "creator of all that is, seen and unseen" - is necessarily a product of your own internal mind. It has not been perceived. It can not have been perceived. So it's conception must be the product of internal imagination alone. Just as is the case with any other undetectable concept. Yes - It is philosophically possible that it may actually exist. It is philosophically possible that your imagination may have hit upon some great truth of reality by virtue of random chance alone. But there is no more reason to suppose that this GOD does actually exist than there is any other un-evidenced and un-falsifiable concept the human mind can concoct. jar writes: Huh? Or it might actually exist. Which part of "philosophically possible" or "random chance" was unclear to you? Your GOD - This immaterial and undetectable "creator of all that is, seen and unseen" - Is identical in this regard to any other such unfalsifiable and empirically imperceptible entity. Huh? Unless or until it is detected.
Straggler writes: jar writes: Please read what I write. Same to you.
Straggler writes: Why worship or oppose any concept that we know must have been made-up? jar writes: Beliefs whether factual or fantasy effect how people behave. Indeed. So, if you are going to bother opposing anything, oppose the belief. Not the invented god concept. I don't see any reason to oppose beliefs. I do see reasons to oppose behaviors at times. However if you read back you will see that I spoke of opposing even more than just actions but rather the very god. For example, should it turn out that the God Buzsaw tries to market actually happened to be GOD, then I believe it is our duty to actively oppose it.
Straggler writes: jar writes: Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! Anyone who thinks that writing a word in BIG letters changes it's evidential validity is promoting personal appeal at the expense of evidential and logical consistency. That's fine and if you ever come across someone who thinks that "writing a word in BIG letters changes it's evidential validity" please let me know and I will help you discuss the subject with them.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 229 by Straggler, posted 07-20-2010 8:27 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 232 of 479 (569128)
07-20-2010 12:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 231 by Straggler
07-20-2010 12:12 PM
|
|
Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
Straggler writes: jar writes: Straggler writes: Your GOD - This immaterial and undetectable "creator of all that is, seen and unseen" - Is identical in this regard to any other such unfalsifiable and empirically imperceptible entity. Huh? Unless or until it is detected. And how might this detection occur? No idea. Dying might be one.
Straggler writes: Do you accept that there is no more reason to elevate this possibility above the possibility that any other such unfalsifiable and empirically imperceptible concept that can be plucked from the arse of humanity might also exist? Of course.
Straggler writes: jar writes: However if you read back you will see that I spoke of opposing even more than just actions but rather the very god. And I see little point in opposing entities that (philosophical possibility and random chance aside) are necessarily the products of human invention. As all empirically imperceptible entities must be. How could it be otherwise? It's a good thing then I never suggested opposing the products of human invention unless they lead to behavior that needs to be addressed.
Straggler writes: jar writes: For example, should it turn out that the God Buzsaw tries to market actually happened to be GOD, then I believe it is our duty to actively oppose it. The chances of Buz's god turning out to actually exist are so ridiculously unworth worrying about that our concerns would be better spent opposing the potentially dangerous beliefs and actions of those that follow this almost certainly false concept. Whatever. But that is of course unrelated to anything I said.
Straggler writes: jar writes: That's fine and if you ever come across someone who thinks that "writing a word in BIG letters changes it's evidential validity" please let me know and I will help you discuss the subject with them. Then could you clarify what you think the evidential and logical difference (if any) is between your GOD and any other unfalsifiable and empirically imperceptible concept? Of course not. I have said several times that it is not an evidential matter but rather one of definition.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 231 by Straggler, posted 07-20-2010 12:12 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
Straggler writes: jar writes: Straggler writes: Then could you clarify what you think the evidential and logical difference (if any) is between your GOD and any other unfalsifiable and empirically imperceptible concept? Of course not. I have said several times that it is not an evidential matter but rather one of definition. And would you also agree that ones definition is derived from what one finds personally appealing? Of course not.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 233 by Straggler, posted 07-20-2010 1:15 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
Straggler writes: Straggler writes: And would you also agree that ones definition is derived from what one finds personally appealing? Of course not. Then what? I have tried to explain this to you several times, and I'll try again. In the case of my believe in GOD, it would be appealing to have some warm, personal, understandable critter. But I don't see how that is possible, no matter how appealing that might be. If there is a GOD, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then the gulf between that entity and me is greater than the gulf between me and slime mold. However, I can imagine some God, in this case the generic Judaic-Muslim-Christian God. That is something totally different then GOD, something where I can assign a few more characteristic. I understand that my God is just some caricature, some human creation of language designed to help me concentrate and think. Finally there is the term god. This is yet another level of increased detail. For example, the god found in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the God found in Genesis 2 & 3. Usually when I get to the level of god I can get far more specific then with the level of God or GOD. I can say that the god in Genesis 2&3 is very human, intimate, looks like a human, walks like a human, has human emotions, is personal, not overly bright, hands on, sometimes unsure, a tinkerer that works by trial and error, sometimes fearful. The god in Genesis 1 though is entirely different, supremely adept, overarching, able to create immediately by a simple act of will but also aloof, separate from what is created. Three totally different definitions of the generic term 'god'.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 235 by Straggler, posted 07-20-2010 1:35 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
Straggler writes: Why? Why cannot "the creator of all that is, seen and unseen" be a bored depressed and perfectly emotionally comprehensible entity who invented a method of universe creation for a bit of light relief? Seriously. Why not? You seem very determined to invoke this mega incomprehensible super superior GOD being. But why that concept rather than any other? Could well be. My point is I cannot really say anything much about GOD. I can say more about God and even more about god.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 238 by Straggler, posted 07-20-2010 2:20 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
Straggler writes: Philosophical possibility and blind random chance aside there is no reason to think this GOD of yours exists anywhere but in the minds of men. Is there? Perhaps there is no reason for you to think that GOD exists. Good thing I never asked you to think that that GOD exists.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 240 by Straggler, posted 07-21-2010 2:48 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 248 of 479 (569612)
07-22-2010 12:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 247 by Straggler
07-22-2010 12:30 PM
|
|
on GOD
Straggler writes: jar writes: Perhaps there is no reason for you to think that GOD exists. Aside from wholly internally derived personal conviction or personal appeal what reason is there for anyone to believe in this GOD? None. However that also has nothing to do with whether the entity really does exist or not.
Straggler writes: jar writes: If there is a GOD, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then the gulf between that entity and me is greater than the gulf between me and slime mold. However, I can imagine some God, in this case the generic Judaic-Muslim-Christian God. That is something totally different then GOD, something where I can assign a few more characteristic. I understand that my God is just some caricature, some human creation of language designed to help me concentrate and think. You seem to think that increased ambiguity justifies some sort of significant distinction between this concept of GOD and any other immaterial and empirically imperceptible God/god concept. You can apply the labels "unimaginable" and "incomprehensible" to your concept of GOD if you like. But it remains the case that your conception of this unimaginable, incomprehensible, immaterial creator of all that is, seen and unseen (i.e. GOD) is just as necessarily a product of human imagination as any other empirically imperceptible concept. (Random chance and philosophical possibility aside) No, I actually explained the definition I was using, no more, no less. I attempted to explain precisely what the distinctions were between the terms I used. Of course my concepts are the product of my imagination, but again, that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not such a critter really does exist.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 247 by Straggler, posted 07-22-2010 12:30 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: on GOD
Straggler writes: And these distinctions demonstrate nothing but your attempt to internally differentiate your own self defined GOD from your definitions of God or god by means of increasing ambiguity. Of course, they let you know what distinctions I am making so that when I write god, or God or GOD you know which definition I am using.
Straggler writes: Not irrelevant at all. The chances of your imagined concept of GOD actually existing are no more or less than any other concept humanity can pluck from it's collective arse. So in answer to the question of whether or not your GOD exists it seems fair to say - Almost certainly not. Okay.
Straggler writes: Which in turn makes belief in the existence of this GOD almost certainly false. Huh? My belief in the existence of GOD is most certainly not false, I believe it. Now if you are asserting that the GOD I believe in is false, then of course you are free to hold that opinion. Just understand though that whether or not you happen to think the GOD I believe in is false is really irrelevant beyond being a statement of your personal belief.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 250 by Straggler, posted 07-22-2010 3:00 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: on GOD
The answer to all of those questions is ..."My belief." You're asking really silly questions. I believe that GOD exists. I don't ask you to hold that belief. Edited by jar, : No reason given.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 252 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2010 2:03 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: on GOD
Straggler writes: Is your belief in GOD irrational? I would certainly say so.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 254 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2010 2:31 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: on GOD
Straggler writes: Is atheism towards this GOD irrational? Not at all, in fact until evidence is presented, really strong evidence sufficient to convince you fully, I would say that it is both the rational and logical position.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 256 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2010 2:37 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2