IPU's vs. Hong Kong

[Beleth]

Here's a potential counterargument to the "God vs. Invisible Pink Unicorn" argument:

I have never been to Hong Kong. I have seen pictures of what people say is Hong Kong. There have been reams of information written about Hong Kong. I have even met people who claim that they have been to Hong Kong. Yet I have never experienced Hong Kong myself.

It is therefore just as irrational/rational for me to believe in the existence of Hong Kong as it is for me to believe in God. After all, there are pictures of what people say is God, and reams of information written about God, and people that say they have met God.

How can you believe in a place you have never been to any more than you can believe in God?

The obvious reply is "well, you can visit Hong Kong in person", but that doesn't wash - why would I spend time and money attempting to visit a place I do not believe exists?

Are there any arguments for the existence of Hong Kong that can't be morphed into arguments for the existence of God?

[rustypouch]

Originally posted by Beleth


Are there any arguments for the existence of Hong Kong that can't be morphed into arguments for the existence of God?

I think so. Off the top of my head, a few spring to mind. I have seen pictures of Hong Kong, taken by people I know, and these people are in some of the pictures. The content of these pictures, i.e. background, buildings, landscapes, etc., are consistent with pictures others have taken of Hong Kong. These pictures are evidence, not stories.

Also, these people have brought back products from Hong Kong which are not available where I live. These products match ones that I have advertised on the internet, and I have seen receipts from the stores in Hong Kong where these items were purchased.

From the massive amount of evidence there is on Hong Kong, I can think of two conclusions: either hong Kong does exist, or it is a massive hoax with no clear purpose.

[Fade]

Are there any arguments for the existence of Hong Kong that can't be morphed into arguments for the existence of God?

All of them.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by rustypouch
I think so. Off the top of my head, a few spring to mind. I have seen pictures of Hong Kong, taken by people I know, and these people are in some of the pictures. The content of these pictures, i.e. background, buildings, landscapes, etc., are consistent with pictures others have taken of Hong Kong. These pictures are evidence, not stories.But how much can you trust a photograph in the days of Photoshop? And even before the days of Photoshop, there were ways of tricking photographs. And even if they're not tricked, they could be pictures of Canton, or Shanghai, or Manila, or a host of other Asian cities that may or may not actually exist too.

Also, these people have brought back products from Hong Kong which are not available where I live. These products match ones that I have advertised on the internet, and I have seen receipts from the stores in Hong Kong where these items were purchased.I could probably go up to Chinatown in San Francisco and get similar items. If they aren't readily available, I could probably find someone who would make or otherwise procure them for me for a price. And just because a receipt has the name of a store in Hong Kong on it doesn't mean that it was actually printed in Hong Kong.

From the massive amount of evidence there is on Hong Kong, I can think of two conclusions: either hong Kong does exist, or it is a massive hoax with no clear purpose. Just like God!



Originally posted by Fade
All of them.Then it should be trivial for you to come up with one. I invite you to do so.

[Loki]

I'd say there are (at a minimum) at least two clear criteria for separating the concepts of "god" and "Hong Kong" - attributes, and relevence.

1. Attributes : God has (in most believer's versions) attributes that are incompatible with any other known object - omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent for starters. This makes god unique in almost every way. Therefore, you need to build a case for existence that cannot rely upon 'similarity'. I can build a list of Hong Kong's attributes, and verify most of these by visiting similar cities near me. Since it walks, talks and looks like a duck, I can provisionally conclude that it's probably a duck. We can apply this principle to Hong Kong, we can't apply it to god.

2. Relevence. For most believers, god is a central concept in their worldview. At the very least, god is usually seen as the 'source' of morality. This makes god's existence far more 'relevant' than Hong Kong's existence to most believers. Given the (far) greater relevence, it seems to me that the evidence must be far greater. For me, finding out tomorrow that Hong Kong is a hoax would be amazing, but ultimately nothing more than an interesting fact about this world. For a believer, finding out tommorow that god is a fake would be a massive blow to their entire outlook on life. Far greater relevence = far greater evidence required.

[Fade]

Then it should be trivial for you to come up with one. I invite you to do so.

You're trolling for responses.

You got them.

Be satisfied you stirred a few remarks up and rub your hands gleefully.

Then, go away.

[Sindai]

I'm with Fade. No one could possibly be stupid enough to display this staggering level of ignorance and uncommon nonsense and still punctuate correctly.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Loki
I can build a list of Hong Kong's attributes, and verify most of these by visiting similar cities near me. Since it walks, talks and looks like a duck, I can provisionally conclude that it's probably a duck. We can apply this principle to Hong Kong, we can't apply it to god.Good point. But could we apply it to IPU's? IPU's have similar traits that other (existant) objects have.

I know it sounds like I'm changing the subject here, but I'm not. My whole point is to show that comparing God to an IPU is like comparing that God/IPU to a place you have never personally experienced yourself - that it's a specious argument, not that it's a valid one.

There's no doubt in my mind that Hong Kong exists, of course.
There's likewise no doubt in my mind that IPU's don't exist, although I personally have no hard evidence either way for either of them. I have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" but I don't have "proof beyond the shadow of a doubt", in other words.
Likewise, I have no hard evidence for the existence or nonexistence of God. (In fact, as I have posted elsewhere, I don't belive that there can be human-observable evidence of the existence or nonexistence of God.) I just happen to fall on the "believe" side of that fence.

2. Relevence. For most believers, god is a central concept in their worldview. At the very least, god is usually seen as the 'source' of morality. This makes god's existence far more 'relevant' than Hong Kong's existence to most believers. Given the (far) greater relevence, it seems to me that the evidence must be far greater. For me, finding out tomorrow that Hong Kong is a hoax would be amazing, but ultimately nothing more than an interesting fact about this world. For a believer, finding out tommorow that god is a fake would be a massive blow to their entire outlook on life. Far greater relevence = far greater evidence required. But isn't relevence a type of evidence? If so many people believe in God and let the attributes attributed to Him guide their everyday lives, doesn't that make Him "exist" in some nebulous way that doesn't likewise make IPU's exist? Yes, it's a circular Man-creates-God sort of argument, but that doesn't make God not exist.



Fade, Sindai:
I know it's in vogue to ask questions one already knows the answer to, and your responses to me lead me to believe that you think I'm doing that. If that's true - if you think that I have some sort of agenda here - you are wrong. I only ask questions I don't know the answers to. The whole God vs. IPU thread really got me thinking. It is a very persuasive argument, but deep down I'm sure there's something wrong with it. I'm just trying to look at it from the opposite side - to compare God to something that we all agree does exist in the same way that the IPU argument compares God to something that doesn't exist - and see if this counterargument shows as much validity as the original IPU argument.

I'm exploring with reason. I am picking the brains of my fellow JREFers. If you don't want to join me on this exploration, you don't have to.

[Fade]

It is a very persuasive argument, but deep down I'm sure there's something wrong with it.

Fine. I'll assume for a moment you aren't a troll and are playing some sort of devils advocate to promote critical thinking.

However, the argument is perfect in it's simplicity.

I'm just trying to look at it from the opposite side - to compare God to something that we all agree does exist in the same way that the IPU argument compares God to something that doesn't exist - and see if this counterargument shows as much validity as the original IPU argument.

You hit on the answer in your own phrasing. "We all know"

I have never visited Hong Kong personally, but here are the reasons I know for a fact it exists:

Numerous photographs.
Extensive histories.
Nearly every country on earth having mentioned it in literally millions of documents, all in the same way, without any agenda at all.
Numerous journalists documenting it's policies, it's peoples, local drama, whatever.
The reliability of all previously noted evidence.


When it comes to the mundane, I am more likely to believe a given account. Why? Because when it comes to the mundane, there is no reason to lie, or to make something up. "I went to the 7/11 and bought a soda" is not someting provable by any means, really. However, whether I went to 7/11 and bought a soda or not is irrelevant to my personal life. My having gone there doesn't benefit me, nor would having not gone there be to my detriment. It's an everyday occurence. (well not really, now that I have a slushie machine)

The problem with god "evidence" is that is lacks in both quality AND quantity. Any given person will give you a dramatically different account as to what constitutes god. These ideas will undoubtedly change several times throughout the persons life. Nobody can give me something tangible, or something mathematical, or even a picture.

Also, a person professing a belief in god must support that belief. I know it sounds like a truism, but it's a very important part of the critical thinking process. One must examine even more harshly a statement of belief when it happens to support an already existing paradigm that a given person holds. To a christian, for instance, the physical existence of Jesus as Christ is paramount to their entire world view. If this single fact were untrue, their entire belief system would collapse in upon itself. They are, literally, wound up inextricably from their belief system.

One example often given to illustrate this point is this:

If tomorrow God were proven not to exist, priests would no longer be priests. However, if tomorrow the laws of physics were turned upside down and falsified, physicists would still be physicists. Our rational minds are able to adapt the world as we examine and uncover more and more evidence. Over time, our worldview becomes more correct, as we can test our theories time and time again.


To get back to the IPU argument, it works on every level.

1. It doesn't give either party a way to directly examine it.
2. It presents a different idea in the mind of every person who may express belief in the IPU.
3. It leaves no empirical, mathematical, or observation evidence.
4. It has no properties outside being invisible and pink.

This is exactly what god is. That is why the argument works.

[Loki]

Beleth,

IPU's have similar traits that other (existant) objects have.
Well, not quite. An IPU is given 3 key properties - Invisible, pink, and unicorn (or 'horse with large horn in forehead'). The entire reason for choosing all 3 of these attributes is that they are *clearly* not attributes that horses (the nearest verifiable equivalent) have. (well, okay, perhaps the 'pink' can be argued in some way, depending upon your definitions of colours).

Again, to back up what Fade says, the 'IPU versus God' argument is valid because both have "impossible to verify" attributes. The 'Hong Kong versus God' argument fails because Hong Kong has verifiable attributes.

[evildave]

For one, if you're so highly "skeptical" of Hong Kong's existence, get on a plane and fly there, spend a week or so wandering around to verify it's all there, then come back and tell us what it's like. It sounds like you need a vacation, anyway.

Of course, you can't really prove to someone that Hong Kong isn't some other city dressed up to LOOK like Hong Kong, just to trick you into believing.

Maybe they just dragged a lot of Chinese people into Toronto when they heard you were flying there to Hong Kong, made some fake signs, dressed the place up, printed some fake tourist guides, and then they flew around in circles for hours and hourse, then dropped you off there. They even went so far as to bugger the GPS so it's report you were near China, instead of in Toronto. They will all be laughing at you as soon as you leave, to be sure.

Of course, maybe some of the people there are locals, wearing disguises. I recommend pulling on moustaches and beards and and yelling "Canada SUCKS!" as loudly as you can, when you go there. Just to double-check.

[Beleth]

Fade, Loki -

You have given me a lot of food for thought, and I appreciate it. But most of the arguments given for the existence of Hong Kong (extensive history, mentioned by almost every nation) can still apply to the existence of God. And even though horses themselves don't have all the properties of an IPU, there are things that do (air is invisible, powder puffs are pink, and other animals have horns).

The one that I can't easily devil's-advocate around is Fade's modifier "without any agenda at all."

I will attempt to give a more coherent response later today. Perhaps at lunch time. Goodness knows that I haven't been at all persuasive in this one.

[Nyarlathotep]

I would say that the best argument for the existance of Hong Kong that would not apply to the existance of either God or IPU's is this.

You know that other cities exist. The existance of a city doesn't require anything beyond what you know about the laws of the universe to be true in order for it to exist. Since you know other cities exist it doesn't require any major leap of logic to conclude from photos, acounts of other travellers etc, that Hong Kong exists.

A God (or an IPU) on the other hand does require certain exceptions to be made in the known laws of the universe in order to exist. This means the logical leap to accept the existance is much larger, unnacceptably large in my opinion.

[synaesthesia]

The theory concillience of Hong Kong unequivocally and vastly outstripps that of God.

People who know what they're talking about, and the evidential considerations involved attest to hong Kong. People who don't know what they're talking about take god on faith.

Geographical locations are well known. Cosmological designers are not.

[Fade]

But most of the arguments given for the existence of Hong Kong (extensive history, mentioned by almost every nation) can still apply to the existence of God.

No, they can't. No god has been mentioned by every nation. Each nation mentions thousands of different gods in different ways with different principles. Even the christians obviously believe in vastly, vastly different gods. Also, the nature of those histories is vastly different.

Let's pretend for a moment that everyone in history that has been a monotheist has the same core beliefs, so one could argue they believe in the same god. If you were to take all the writing attributed to testimony for god, it would amount to exactly nothing as far as empirical evidence goes.

Science demands evidence be reproducable. I can go to Hong Kong if I so desire, then the evidence is first hand. The only way I can "see god" is to accept that god exists in the first place. That is self-fulfilling.

The problem here, is that you don't quite understand what constitutes valid v invalid evidence. The justice system has lead people to believe that eye witnesses are reliable. They aren't.

[RichardR]

Hong Kong is just another city on planet Earth. Consequently, the existence of HK is not an extraordinary claim, and so evidence for HK does not have to be extraordinary.

God is a supernatural being who created the universe. That is an extraordinary claim. Do you see the difference?

[Yahzi]

The obvious reply is "well, you can visit Hong Kong in person", but that doesn't wash - why would I spend time and money attempting to visit a place I do not believe exists?
Yes it does wash - it is the entire point.

You could, in principle, visit Hong Kong. You cannot, in principle, visit God. This reduces the testimony for God to the level of hearsay. Not only do you have to have faith that people are reporting their experiences correctly (which is no big deal), you have to have faith that they are interpreting their experiences correctly (which is a huge deal). With HK, you can interpret the experience directly: with God, you cannot. With HK, you can check up on other people's assertions; with God, you cannot.

This marks all the difference between reason and faith, between reality and imagination.

[Beleth]

All right. Here goes.

There are a lot of common threads running through the replies here, and I'll try to address them first.

HK is an ordinary city, and thus needs no special proof: Okay, but there have been a lot of ficticious ordinary cities that would pass this test too. For some reason I find myself thinking of River City, the town in "The Music Man". Nothing extraordinary or supernatual about there; it's not like it's Atlantis or El Dorado or anything. Yet it doesn't exist.

Valid vs. invalid evidence: A reasonable person would collect all the evidence first before making the subjective decision about which pieces of evidence to believe and which to discount. Certainly reproducibility is a key criterion to base this decision on. But in a lot of real-life instances where one must judge evidence (a murder trial, say), reproducibility just isn't an option. Neither is it an option when one is talking about universe creation.

Different descriptions of God vs. one description of HK:There are a lot of different descriptions of HK, too. You can buy numerous different travel guides that tell you where the good restaurants are, where the good hotels are, where you can take kids to, etc. One restaurant guide may rate a restaurant differently than another restaurant guide. That doesn't cast doubt on whether the restaurant actually exists, though. Just because two people's perceptions of something differ is not evidence that the thing doesn't exist.


I don't know. Maybe Fade is right; maybe I do have a problem differentiating valid and invalid evidence. Or maybe there's a third way out.

Deism is looking better and better all the time.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Beleth
All right. Here goes.

There are a lot of common threads running through the replies here, and I'll try to address them first.

HK is an ordinary city, and thus needs no special proof: Okay, but there have been a lot of ficticious ordinary cities that would pass this test too. For some reason I find myself thinking of River City, the town in "The Music Man". Nothing extraordinary or supernatual about there; it's not like it's Atlantis or El Dorado or anything. Yet it doesn't exist.



However, if one had no knowledge that River City was fiction and all of the evidence taht River City was an actual place was presented to you as fact, you would be perfectly justified in believing it existed. If one is given incorrect facts, even perfect logic will lead to an erroneous conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Beleth
All right. Here goes.

HK is an ordinary city, and thus needs no special proof: Okay, but there have been a lot of ficticious ordinary cities that would pass this test too. For some reason I find myself thinking of River City, the town in "The Music Man". Nothing extraordinary or supernatual about there; it's not like it's Atlantis or El Dorado or anything. Yet it doesn't exist.

Of course it exists. Every fan-boy knows that River City is the fictional name for the very real city of Mason City, Iowa, USA.

[Fade]

Originally posted by Beleth


[quote]HK is an ordinary city, and thus needs no special proof: Okay, but there have been a lot of ficticious ordinary cities that would pass this test too. For some reason I find myself thinking of River City, the town in "The Music Man". Nothing extraordinary or supernatual about there; it's not like it's Atlantis or El Dorado or anything. Yet it doesn't exist.

False analogy. Fictional places aren't supposed to be real, there is no mistaking that.

Valid vs. invalid evidence: A reasonable person would collect all the evidence first before making the subjective decision about which pieces of evidence to believe and which to discount.

Very, very, very, very wrong.

Each piece of evidence can be weighed independantly, as it were. If one were to follow the idea of "collect all then decide which" what would happen is what is called "data mining." It skirts dangerously close to Meta-Analysis, which is all but worthless. Each piece of evidence should be of unequivocal veracity, or be researched further until it is.

Certainly reproducibility is a key criterion to base this decision on. But in a lot of real-life instances where one must judge evidence (a murder trial, say), reproducibility just isn't an option. Neither is it an option when one is talking about universe creation.

We aren't talking about deciding law or circumstance. I said earlier that Americans are done a great disservice when they learn about evidence through criminal law. If you had any idea how many cases were overturned because witnesses were found to be lying, or just plain wrong, you'd feel the same way I do.

Also, we aren't talking about universe creation, we're talking about "god" if you will. If it's real, where the hell is it? And, if you can't point it out, why would you think it's there in the first place? It's always troubled me that a person can scream "GOD EXISTS!" but can't tell me exactly what god is, or where god is, or what god is doing. If you don't know about that, why do you know about god at ALL?


Different descriptions of God vs. one description of HK:There are a lot of different descriptions of HK, too.

Correct in an anal way, absolutely false in a more correct way.

Descriptions of Hong Kong always include the same places, the same weather (per year, obviously) the same everything.

You can buy numerous different travel guides that tell you where the good restaurants are, where the good hotels are, where you can take kids to, etc.

Another mindless analogy. Subjective "good v bad" comparisons mean nothing. If you want to know the best places in Seattle to go, you're going to get thousands of different answers. If you want to know where Coleman dock is, you're going to get one answer. That's the difference between objective and subjective knowledge. I know where Coleman dock is because the term describes a single place, with a specific look, that serves a specific function. Same for Pine Street, or the Space Needle, or Westlake Center. Now, opinions on their cleanliness, the quality of the shops surrounding them, etc, are going to vary because they aren't objective experiences.

Again, you belay a huge misunderstanding of what evidence IS, and that is your problem with understanding the IPU argument.

One restaurant guide may rate a restaurant differently than another restaurant guide. That doesn't cast doubt on whether the restaurant actually exists, though. Just because two people's perceptions of something differ is not evidence that the thing doesn't exist.


I don't know. Maybe Fade is right; maybe I do have a problem differentiating valid and invalid evidence.


No maybes about it.
Or maybe there's a third way out.

Deism is looking better and better all the time.

You ARE a troll.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Fade
You ARE a troll. And not only do you have no idea what Deism is, your arguments are circular, you don't realize it, and if you are once again resorting to calling me a troll, you have apparently run out of them.

Nice chatting with you.

[Akots]

After we take you to Hong Kong, and allow you to experience it's culture, economics, and geography, THEN you are permitted to continue to refuse it's existance, at your discression. Even so, I find the IPU argument rather mindless and pointless.

Also, the evidence for the existance of God is assumed to be All Of Creation. When All Of Creation is your evidence, there's something not right...

EDIT: I prefer to think of God the way I think of The Way Things Are. They're totally interchangeable. And there's no ned t oassume it's intelligent. Try it out at home!

1) Praise The Way Things Are!
2) Why? Because The Way Things Are made it that way.
3) Put your unconditional faith in The Way Things Are, and be saved!

[thaiboxerken]

Ahh.. yet another stupid arguement by a theist. Beleth cannot provide evidence of a god, so instead attacks reality.

Then again, maybe Beleth is simply trolling OR

trying to score free tickets to China.

[Fade]

Attacking reality is so easy. It can't fight back.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Beleth
And not only do you have no idea what Deism is, your arguments are circular, you don't realize it, and if you are once again resorting to calling me a troll, you have apparently run out of them.

Nice chatting with you.
Fade knows what Deism is: it is the elevation of ignorance to the status of wisdom.

"We believe in something, which makes you wrong, but we can't explain what it is we believe in, or how believing in it is any different than not believing in it, or how you could possibly ever test the truth of our belief, but we know this much for certain: we are right and you are wrong."

You failed to address my issue that Hong Kong could be in principle verified by personal experience, and that God cannot.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Yahzi
You failed to address my issue that Hong Kong could be in principle verified by personal experience, and that God cannot.

I think the role of personal experience is secondary to the larger issue of scientific investigation. As a matter of fact, most of us are not going to go out and get classical empirical confirmation of the EPR experiements, but we can rely on their truth far more certainly than what our 'direct' experiences tell us, for instance, about the shades of colours in our environment.

There is a sense, however, in which your empirical point can be construed as being sufficiently general. That is, the naturalistic demand that all of the theories permit the investigation of meaingful relationships between the subject of the theory and ourselves.

This naturalistic demand does not require going to Hong Kong, although our own personal experience will by definition be involved in how we establish a relationship to Hong Kong. (Via: evaluation of information sources like sattelites, maps, products produced in Hong Kong etc)

Note that the same does not apply to the IPU. No determinate or determinable relationship exists between it and us, save that the IPU is a fiction invented to illustrate epistemological issues. The same applies to pretty much all conceptions of God save the possible advanced civilization God or the god-is-this-chair gods.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Fade knows what Deism is: it is the elevation of ignorance to the status of wisdom.And so is atheism.

"We believe in something, which makes you wrong, but we can't explain what it is we believe in, or how believing in it is any different than not believing in it, or how you could possibly ever test the truth of our belief, but we know this much for certain: we are right and you are wrong."Which is exactly the stance atheists take too.

I am perfectly willing to admit that Deism has no scientific basis to it. Neither does Theism. But I am also perfectly willing to admit that atheism has no scientific basis to it. Are you willing to admit this too?

You failed to address my issue that Hong Kong could be in principle verified by personal experience, and that God cannot. Sure, HK can in principle be verified by personal experience. So can IPUs.

Given an sufficient amount of resources, one can verify the existence of animals that are invisible, pink, unicorn-shaped, and exist within the universe. There is no amount of resources that can verify the existence of a standoffish creator being, because our resources are limited to the inside of the creation, and the creator being is necessarily outside of the creation. It's like looking for the potter within the clay of the pot.

Either something created the universe, or nothing did. Since we can't possibly scientifically know what happened before the universe was created, every belief about what happened before then is by definition unscientific. Fortunately, the human mind has other tools besides science to work on problems like this.

Nothing defends itself better than reality. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a poor grasp of reality.

[roger]

Originally posted by Beleth
But I am also perfectly willing to admit that atheism has no scientific basis to it.

Atheism is falsifiable, thus scientific. Perhaps you mean something else by "scientific basis", though.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by roger
Atheism is falsifiable, thus scientific. Perhaps you mean something else by "scientific basis", though. If either atheism or Deism is true, then atheism is not falsifiable.

Only if Theism is true is atheism falsifiable. But I am not arguing that Theism is (or even could possibly) be true.

[Yahzi]

Beleth
I am perfectly willing to admit that Deism has no scientific basis to it. Neither does Theism. But I am also perfectly willing to admit that atheism has no scientific basis to it. Are you willing to admit this too?
At the risk of being pendantic, there is no scientific basis for atheism, but there is a rational basis. Throughout this post you have appeared to use science as a synonym for reason, so I'm going to assume you intended that.

There is a rational basis for atheism, because atheism is the lack of a belief about gods, and the only rational position one can take when one does not have any evidence is "I don't know." Deism cannot in any way be construed as "I don't know." Therefore, Deism is not rational.

Given an sufficient amount of resources, one can verify the existence of animals that are invisible, pink, unicorn-shaped, and exist within the universe.
You forgot intangible. The entire point of IPUs is that they are defined to be unverifiable. So add intangible and transcendant to your list of attributes.

There is no amount of resources that can verify the existence of a standoffish creator being, because our resources are limited to the inside of the creation, and the creator being is necessarily outside of the creation.
In other words, your Diest god is unfalsifiable. We knew that. Why are you telling us that?

Either something created the universe, or nothing did. Since we can't possibly scientifically know what happened before the universe was created, every belief about what happened before then is by definition unscientific.
Which is why one must have no belief about what happened before the universe was created. As a skeptic, I do not have a belief that the universe was not created; I simply lack a belief that it was. My belief about what happened before the universe began is: I don't know.

Fortunately, the human mind has other tools besides science to work on problems like this.
Like what, imagination and wishful thinking? Science is the best tool we have for investigating the empirical world. The validity of science is demonstrated in its effectivness: how do you propose to demonstrate the validity of your other tools?

Nothing defends itself better than reality. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a poor grasp of reality.
Reality does not defend itself; rather, it asserts itself at the most unoppourtune times. I would be happy to allow you to discover that for yourself, except for the annoying tendency of reality to punish everyone in the room at the time.

If either atheism or Deism is true, then atheism is not falsifiable.

Only if Theism is true is atheism falsifiable. But I am not arguing that Theism is (or even could possibly) be true.
You seem to have confused "false" with "falsifiable." The point is that atheism can, in principle, be shown to be false (by producing a God). Your Deism, however, cannot in principle be shown to be false, since part of the defintion of your deism is it cannot be proven false (as God can always be just hiding). Deism can be shown to be true, by producing a God; but it cannot, under any circumstance, be shown to be false.

Atheism cannot, in principle, be shown to be true; but that doesn't matter. Scientific theories have to be falsifiable and fit the evidence; they do not have to be deductively rigorous.

Do you understand the difference?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by synaesthesia

There is a sense, however, in which your empirical point can be construed as being sufficiently general. That is, the naturalistic demand that all of the theories permit the investigation of meaingful relationships between the subject of the theory and ourselves.

Well, I include looking through the microscope as "personal experience." I think that most people would be more confused by "meaningful relationship," because they would define their one-way conversations to god as a meaningful relationship. Explaining to them that relationships that only contain one entity do not count as relationships seems harder than smacking them on the back of the head and saying, "look through the microscope yourself!"

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Yahzi

You failed to address my issue that Hong Kong could be in principle verified by personal experience, and that God cannot.

Yahzi, soul brother and intellectual doppleganger, I have to beg to differ.
If we consider that spiritual experience is a subset of human experinece then we can say that the perception of god is a human experience and that the experience is verifiable through the scientific method.
If you try praying, with sincerity and practise there is a result which is obtained. Some might call it delusion, others call it 'god' and others might call it 'my cool spiritual experience'.

This does not mean to say that there is an objective Giant Burrito docking at the Salsa Station and waiting to feed the masses. The spiritual experience that can be tested and objectified as a human experience.

Most respectfuly and humbly disagreeing.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Yahzi
At the risk of being pendantic, there is no scientific basis for atheism, but there is a rational basis. Throughout this post you have appeared to use science as a synonym for reason, so I'm going to assume you intended that.Absolutely not. I am using science and reason in their everyday meanings. Science does not purport to explain everything. I don't think it even tries. When there's no scientific basis to make a decision, one must fall back on reason.

There is a rational basis for atheism, because atheism is the lack of a belief about gods, and the only rational position one can take when one does not have any evidence is "I don't know." Deism cannot in any way be construed as "I don't know." Therefore, Deism is not rational.You are confusing atheism with agnosticism.

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
Agnosticism is the lack of a belief either way.

It is depressing to think that I am having to define words at this point in this discussion.


You forgot intangible. The entire point of IPUs is that they are defined to be unverifiable. So add intangible and transcendant to your list of attributes.No, I didn't forget. That's why I added the "sufficient amount of resources" clause to my statement.

Of course, if you're going to add transcendent, by which I assume you mean "being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge", to the list of attributes IPU's have, then it's unreasonable to assign the attributes "invisible", "pink", and "unicorn" to them. Either you are talking about transcendent beings, or you are talking about beings with specific visual qualities.


In other words, your Diest god is unfalsifiable. We knew that. Why are you telling us that?Once again, absolutely not. I am not saying that a Deist god is unfalsifiable; I am saying that a Deist god is unverifiable. A Deist stance can be falsified in exactly the same way that an atheist, or an agnostic, stance can be falsified: by producing God.


Reality does not defend itself; rather, it asserts itself at the most unoppourtune times. I would be happy to allow you to discover that for yourself, except for the annoying tendency of reality to punish everyone in the room at the time.I have no idea what you are trying to say here.


You seem to have confused "false" with "falsifiable." The point is that atheism can, in principle, be shown to be false (by producing a God). Your Deism, however, cannot in principle be shown to be false, since part of the defintion of your deism is it cannot be proven false (as God can always be just hiding). Deism can be shown to be true, by producing a God; but it cannot, under any circumstance, be shown to be false.Nope. See above. The notion of an unverifiable God is falsified, not verified, by producing God.

Atheism cannot, in principle, be shown to be true; but that doesn't matter. Scientific theories have to be falsifiable and fit the evidence; they do not have to be deductively rigorous.

Do you understand the difference? Sure do. Always have. Do you understand the difference between Deism and Theism?

There's a difference between being scientific and having a scientific basis. The difference is the amount of evidence. I'd say you need at least one piece of evidence supporting a theory for that theory to have a scientific basis, whereas, pedantically, all you need to be scientific is a falsifiable theory that doesn't contradict the evidence, even if the evidence is the empty set.

Atheism is falsifiable and does not have any evidence to support it; therefore it is scientific, but has no scientific basis.
Likewise, Deism is falsifiable and does not have any evidence to support it; therefore it is scientific, but has no scientific basis.
Theism is not falsifiable; therefore, it is neither scientific nor has a scientific basis.
(Agnosticism is not a theory; it is the absence of a theory, and therefore not scientific either.)

Am I making myself clear yet?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Beleth

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
?
You've made it clear that you are willing to twist words to have your way. I believe the usual definition of atheism is "lack of belief in gods". Very subtle, but very different.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

You've made it clear that you are willing to twist words to have your way. I believe the usual definition of atheism is "lack of belief in gods". Very subtle, but very different. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism

I'm sorry, who is twisting?

[Fade]

If we consider that spiritual experience is a subset of human experinece then we can say that the perception of god is a human experience and that the experience is verifiable through the scientific method.

If spiritual experience were real, we'd all believe basically the same things. 10,000 people don't go to hong kong and give vastly different reports. One person won't report yellow skies, 120 degree weather, and people that walk on their hands, while another reports sub-arctic conditions, and dogs that drive cars. They all give the same general conditions, and then relate their subjective experiences. These experiences all synch with one another.

The same can not be said in any way, shape, or form, of religious experiences. Each person will give an experience they have been programmed to experience. A person in the middle of the african savannah doesn't suddenly stand up and praise God and Jesus. If things like these were true, one would expect random, unprovoked conversion. There are no random, unprovoked conversions.

If a given thing is objectively true, shouldn't more than a single culture arrive at that conclusion? In science, two or more scientists (or groups of them) will often arrive at the same conclusion more or less at the same time, even though they weren't actually working together. Different cultures throughout time have, independantly, discovered certain mathematical and astronomical truths. These things are objectively true, so you don't need to hear somebody else speak about them to conclude them.

Nothing similar has happened when it comes to supernatural beliefs. Two cultures that have never encountered one another don't come together and express surprise that they believe in the same things. One would expect that if any given belief were true, than this would have happened.

It hasn't. So, they aren't.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Beleth
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism

I'm sorry, who is twisting?

1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

You are equating "disbelief" with "belief". I stand by my point.

What next? will you tell us that "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
You are equating "disbelief" with "belief". I stand by my point.No, I am equating "disbelief in existence" with "belief in non-existence", whereas you are equating "doctrine" with "lack of doctrine". I stand by mine. What you are describing is more accurately referred to as "agnosticism", which I pointed out earlier.

What next? will you tell us that "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing? Heh.

[Fade]

What next? will you tell us that "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing?

:D

No, I am equating "disbelief in existence" with "belief in non-existence", whereas you are equating "doctrine" with "lack of doctrine". I stand by mine.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you don't understand the philosophy of atheism at all.

What you are describing is more accurately referred to as "agnosticism", which I pointed out earlier.

Agnosticism is a part of atheism. All agnostics are atheists, and I know people are going to disagree with that statement, but it's a philisophical truth.

Edit-

Had to switch two transposed words that would make my statement have a very different meaning.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Beleth
No, I am equating "disbelief in existence" with "belief in non-existence", whereas you are equating "doctrine" with "lack of doctrine". I stand by mine. What you are describing is more accurately referred to as "agnosticism", which I pointed out earlier.



This has been done to f*cking DEATH on this forum :rolleyes:

Which isn't to say you should know that, only that I'm tired of seeing it crop up again and again. I don't want you to think I'm pissed at you or anything :)

Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, it is not imcompatible with atheism.

Agnostic-atheist is a perfectly fine term.

Agnostic - one who believes that we cannot know if there is a god or gods - it is an epistomolgical stance.

Theist - one who holds a belief in a god or gods

Atheist - opposite of theism, one who holds no belief in a god or gods.

That is how Yahzi is using the terms (oops, I assume it is :o), that is how the vast majority of people on these boards use the terms.

Just so you know. If you want to drag out various dictionary definitions we can, but it's futile.

Start a thread even, but just accept it for now, ok? It will help move along this discussion I think.

Adam

[Fade]

Slim: I still don't buy that Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge in general, unless it's used as an adjective :p

But, you're largely correct. The dictionary, as such, is a frail source to lean on to gleen insight and understanding about a specific idea. The problem is that you are only going to get the most superficial of definitions, and there are no philisophical constructs that can be explained in a few sentences. So, while a snippet might be useful in getting an idea, it really takes numerous pages to truly give justice to the complexity of human idea. The dictionary is rightly used to correct mechanics, and sometimes wrongly used to enforce misconceptions. Remember, our language is a huge associative thing. Any given word can have different layers of meanings when in different contexts.

[Beleth]

Okay then, what do you call a person who says either:
"I believe that there are no gods", or
"I know there are no gods"?

Neither your definition of "atheist" or "agnostic" applies to those statements.


And in your definitions, Deism would be a subset of Theism. It's the subset that says "I believe in a God that created the universe and then kept his hands off it", as opposed to how I have been using the term Theist, which would be someone that says "I believe in a God that created the universe and sticks his nose into it from time to time".

What would you call a person who says that last statement?

[Fade]

"I believe that there are no gods", or
"I know there are no gods"?

That person would be a positive atheist. The problem is that you were incorrectly ascribing positive atheism to atheism in general. It's exactly the same as somebody saying "all theists believe in Jesus."

[Beleth]

If Agnosticism is merely a stance on knowledge, put me down as an Agnostic-Deist.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Fade


If spiritual experience were real, we'd all believe basically the same things.
...
It hasn't. So, they aren't.

Um, lets see if spriritual experineces are a human perceptual experienec they they could be as varied as the people who experinece them and still valid.

Not to say that Papa, JR., and spooky are actualy walikng around , but that contact with them could be a valid human experience.

[Fade]

Um, lets see if spriritual experineces are a human perceptual experienec they they could be as varied as the people who experinece them and still valid.

They wouldn't be as varied as they are.

Native Americans lick frogs and see Coyote. Medieval christian prays and sees Jesus on the cross.

If there something more than our own consciousness playing tricks on us, why are the experiences dissimilar in every way?

[Beleth]

Ever look at a cloud, Fade?

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Beleth
If Agnosticism is merely a stance on knowledge, put me down as an Agnostic-Deist.

I think that there is no problem with that label at all :)

And as to your question about someone who claims to know there are no gods, I would call them a hard atheist.

Mostly, such a position is a strawman, I've met very few people that make such a claim. In fact, the only one I can think of is qed, a poster who hasn't come around in here in quite some time.

Oh! And maybe Thaiboxerken, I can't remember for sure though.

Adam

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Beleth

And in your definitions, Deism would be a subset of Theism. It's the subset that says "I believe in a God that created the universe and then kept his hands off it", as opposed to how I have been using the term Theist, which would be someone that says "I believe in a God that created the universe and sticks his nose into it from time to time".

What would you call a person who says that last statement?

I would call them a theist, and I would say that Deism is a sub-set of theism as well.

I'm not claiming these are the only classifications that are allowed, I do think though, that they are the ones most people on the board would use.

Which just makes it reasonable to adapt them when speaking here, it reduces the confusion as well as agruments that are based on semantics only.

Adam

[Fade]

Originally posted by Beleth
Ever look at a cloud, Fade?

Take a look at where I live.

I see nothing BUT clouds :\

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Fade
Take a look at where I live.

I see nothing BUT clouds :\ Okay then.

Think about how many different ways clouds can look.

Big white fluffy clouds that look like animals.
Dark gray threatening storm clouds.
Thin wispy straight clouds.
And about a hundred different other ways.

Even one particular fluffy cloud that looks like an animal can look like different animals to different people.

This does not mean that clouds do not exist.

[Fade]

Originally posted by Beleth
Okay then.

Think about how many different ways clouds can look.

Big white fluffy clouds that look like animals.
Dark gray threatening storm clouds.
Thin wispy straight clouds.
And about a hundred different other ways.

Even one particular fluffy cloud that looks like an animal can look like different animals to different people.

This does not mean that clouds do not exist.


You're describing a bunch of different kinds of clouds. Each of these kinds of clouds can be seen anywhere. Due to their nature, they are never exactly the same shape, but they will always be similar enough that should I describe them to you, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

This is almost as asinine as the "do you SEE the wind" argument.

[Beleth]

Nevertheless, it does not prove that clouds do not exist.

[Fade]

Originally posted by Beleth
Nevertheless, it does not prove that clouds do not exist.

Did you even read what I was saying?

Perhaps you should take a course on logic?

[SFB]

Originally posted by Fade

Agnosticism is a part of atheism. All agnostics are atheists, and I know people are going to disagree with that statement, but it's a philisophical truth.



Fade:

If you would care to either expound on this, or provide a link, I'd greatly appreciate it; I've never run across such an idea. I've always understood agnosticism the way Slimshady describes, and never a subset of atheism. I would very much like to read more. Thanks......

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Fade


They wouldn't be as varied as they are.

Native Americans lick frogs and see Coyote. Medieval christian prays and sees Jesus on the cross.

If there something more than our own consciousness playing tricks on us, why are the experiences dissimilar in every way?

Jumpin horny toads Fade , did I say anything different than that? If spiritual experiences are human experiences then they are as individual as the humans expeiencing them. Also I know an anthropologist whose son underwent the Huichole initiation and the drugs did nothing for him because of his cultural mindset, which says each human will have a different cultural/spiritual experience.

Of course it is out consiousness playing tricks on us, but there is something you can learn if you try it.

[Dancing David]

You're describing a bunch of different kinds of spiritual expeience. Each of these kinds of SE can be seen anywhere. Due to their nature, they are never exactly the same shape, but they will always be similar enough that should I describe them to you, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

Modifyed by me the dancing one.

You can apply science to the spiritual experience, still don't mena that Big Bubba, Jimmny and the invisible one are real. But it does mean they are part of valid human experiences.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Fade


Did you even read what I was saying?

Perhaps you should take a course on logic?

Whats this more abuse or just your frustration?

Do you read what we say. Is logic all there is gods I hope not, logic is a pisspoor approach to life, it is tool but not some universal replacement for all human values.

Peace Fade, can I pray to the pagan choir that you see some sun soon?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Fade
Perhaps you should take a course on logic? No, I need to take a course on not posting ten seconds before I have to be out the door.

You say that you can describe clouds so that anyone can understand what you mean - that there's some basic "cloudness" that all descriptions of clouds have that anyone can grasp.

Fine. I say that that is true of gods too. Native Americans see Coyote where Europeans see Jesus, fine. But there's some basic "godness" in all those descriptions that anyone can grasp. I mean, you had no difficulty recognizing Coyote as a description of a god, did you? Why would you assume that others would?

In the same sense that different descriptions of clouds, or evolution(!), exist does not disprove the existence of clouds or evolution (no matter how much Creationists like to argue that it does), the fast that different descriptions of gods exist does not disprove the existence of gods.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Beleth
Okay then, what do you call a person who says either:
"I believe that there are no gods", or
"I know there are no gods"?

Insane. Or rational. Depending on how absurd you want to get at stretching the meanings of "believe" and "know."

I think a Deist is a Theist without any other qualification: in other words, Theism is the base category, and Deists are those that fit into the base category but no other. So it's natural to confuse the two, since both are identical (except one has subcategories).

In the same sense that different descriptions of clouds, or evolution(!), exist does not disprove the existence of clouds or evolution (no matter how much Creationists like to argue that it does), the fast that different descriptions of gods exist does not disprove the existence of gods.
This is very confused. Nobody argues against this statement, because it isn't relevant or even particularly meaningful.

Contradictory descriptions of clouds serve to disprove descriptions of clouds. If all your descriptions of clouds contradict each other, then what that tells you is you don't have a very good description of clouds. Now, when you define clouds to be "water suspended in air," suddenly all the contradictions vanish: regardless of shape, all clouds fit that description. What that tells you is that you now have a useful description.

The fact that contradictory (not just different, but mutually exclusive) descriptions of god are presented tells us we don't have a good description of god. The problem is that there is no definition of god which does not contradict the evidence. While this does not prove that god does not exist, it does make it irrational to continue to believe in god and the evidence at the same time. (Many religious people solve this condrum by simply denying reality.)

If you think you have a basic description of god, then post it. But be forewarned: no matter what it is, somebody somewhere disagrees. And there is no empirical test you can apply to show that they are wrong. That is sort of the point: because there is nothing there at all, people tend to be unable to agree on what imaginary construct is there. While this is not proof against god, it is a significant difficulty that theism must overcome.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Yahzi
[P]eople tend to be unable to agree on what imaginary construct is there. While this is not proof against god, it is a significant difficulty that theism must overcome. So we are in agreement, then.

Thank goodness. For most of the time I spent reading your post, I thought you were trying to refute me!

[Fade]

Originally posted by Beleth
So we are in agreement, then.

Thank goodness. For most of the time I spent reading your post, I thought you were trying to refute me!

I didn't think it was possible to roll my eyes that much. Selective reading is a skill that I think I need to acquire. With it, everyone says exactly what I want them to say.

[Beleth]

And that's three. Three utterly useless, meritless posts by Fade.

Welcome to ignore, Fade.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Yahzi


If you think you have a basic description of god.

God is a subset of spiritual experiences which are a subset of human experiences which are a subset of reality(a rather limited subset of reality)

So if each human is different than there is good reason to suspect that each experienec will be different.

Still not saying that you will bump into Jumbo,baby and spirit.

[Fade]

Originally posted by Beleth
And that's three. Three utterly useless, meritless posts by Fade.

Welcome to ignore, Fade.

This is priceless in it's irony.

[Beleth]

Let me go into more detail regarding my quasi-snide reply to Yahzi's last post.

My whole reason for bringing up the cloud analogy was to show that the idea that differing descriptions of an entity do not disprove the existence of that entity. Yahzi attempted to refute my analogy. Whether he succeeded or not is immaterial, as he twice conceded my conclusion. And when I saw that, I didn't see any further need to argue.

Now, when you define clouds to be "water suspended in air," suddenly all the contradictions vanish: regardless of shape, all clouds fit that description. What that tells you is that you now have a useful description.The problem is that when you get to this basic a level of description, you start including a lot of other things in your description too. Surely both steam and humidity can be defined as "water suspended in air" yet neither of them are clouds.

You can start to add more and more qualifiers to the definition: that they have to be a certain height above the ground, or a certain size, or have certain visual features, or whatnot. And eventually you will have a page-long definition, full of "or"s.

Just Like God. You can either have a short description, like "a consciousness higher than ours", that can include a lot of stuff you didn't want to include, or you can have a laundry list full of old-men-with-beards and immortal-coyotes and eight-armed-dancing-women, all connected to each other with the word "or".

But this is not my point. My point is that having different descriptions of God does nothing to disprove God.

Yes, it is "a significant difficulty that theists must overcome". Yes, they do. I am not disputing that. I am just saying that the fact that there are different descriptions of God does not in itself prove or disprove the existence of God.

Yahzi agreed with me on this, so I saw no further need to belabor the point. Now, of course, I do see the need to belabor the point, which is what I have done here.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Beleth
But this is not my point. My point is that having different descriptions of God does nothing to disprove God.

To me, it supports the view that human nature is to blame for religions, (G)god(s), and all the ridiculous tales generated on religions' behalf.

[Yahzi]

Beleth
My whole reason for bringing up the cloud analogy was to show that the idea that differing descriptions of an entity do not disprove the existence of that entity. Yahzi attempted to refute my analogy.
Yahzi did not try to refute your analogy. Yahzi tried to show that your analogy did not apply, because nobody ever claimed that different descriptions of God disproved the existance of God. Even the people who brought up the extant wildly varying descriptions of God did not intend it to stand as disproof of God. They meant it to prove another point, which you probably are unaware of, because you stopped reading my post.

You can start to add more and more qualifiers to the definition: that they have to be a certain height above the ground, or a certain size, or have certain visual features, or whatnot. And eventually you will have a page-long definition, full of "or"s..
Do people have page-long definitions in their heads? No, they don't. Yet do they ever confuse clouds with humidity or steam? No, they don't. Why do you suppose this is? (FYI: steam is invisible.)

The short answer is because people function more like neural nets than Von Nueman machines. But it doesn't matter, because it is irrelevant. The point is that people do construct usefull descriptions, and descriptions that are mutually exclusive are not considered useful.

My point is that having different descriptions of God does nothing to disprove God.
Nobody ever said it did. You win: the argument you are refuting stands as utterly refuted. If you would like to refute a few more arguments that no one is advancing, please start a thread called "Me talking to myself," so I know not to waste time reading it.


What contradictory definitions of God disprove is each individual definition of God. Not the existance of some undefined God, but each particular description. But why am I repeating myself? I am sure you already stopped reading....

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Dancing David
So if each human is different than there is good reason to suspect that each experienec will be different.

This is disproved by the patented Yahzi Baseball Bat Test (TM).

Despite the fact that each human is different, and even the fact that each baseball bat is different, the experience of being hit in the head by a baseball bat is sufficiently distinct that it is never confused with other expierences like eating ice cream or playing piano.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Yahzi

This is disproved by the patented Yahzi Baseball Bat Test (TM).

Despite the fact that each human is different, and even the fact that each baseball bat is different, the experience of being hit in the head by a baseball bat is sufficiently distinct that it is never confused with other expierences like eating ice cream or playing piano.

I am a firm believer in the Yahzi Baseball Test (TM), but I don't see how it applies.

each of us is different and has unique memories. So if spiritual processes arise as a result of the invokation/evokation of the subconsious then each experience would vary by the contentys of the subconsious.


Have you thought about an informercial, have the people sitting by the pool: "I used the Yahzi Bat(TM) for one week and my irrational thinking just went away....."

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Yahzi did not try to refute your analogy. Yahzi tried to show that your analogy did not apply, because nobody ever claimed that different descriptions of God disproved the existance of God.Fade did. Perhaps you have him on ignore too. I can't say I blame you. In any case, you can see Fade's use of this as disproof by scrolling up and looking at one of Dancing David's posts - the one that starts with "Jumpin horny toads Fade".

But why am I repeating myself? I am sure you already stopped reading.... You are incorrect, sir.


Despite the fact that each human is different, and even the fact that each baseball bat is different, the experience of being hit in the head by a baseball bat is sufficiently distinct that it is never confused with other expierences like eating ice cream or playing piano.And neither is experiencing God confused with eating ice cream or playing piano. I am not sure where you think these straw men are getting you.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Beleth
Fade did. Perhaps you have him on ignore too. I can't say I blame you. In any case, you can see Fade's use of this as disproof by scrolling up and looking at one of Dancing David's posts - the one that starts with "Jumpin horny toads Fade".

I re-read that post. I stand by my assertion. Fade was not attempting to disprove the existance of god. Fade was asserting that the abscence of repeatable evidence is an indication that the phenomona you are experiencing is merely an artifact of your measurement technique. This is perfectly valid and reasonable.

My bat/ice cream analogy is not a strawman. Every person who gets hit in the head with a bat describes the experience in some way that is compatible with all other bat-hitting descriptions. However a definition is expressed, the fact remains that we can all agree on what getting hit by a bat means.

What you fail to get from Fade's post is that the descriptions of spiritual experiences are not merely different, but mutually exclusive. There is no "common ground" that all of these experiences can rest on, unlike being hit with a bat or eating ice cream. The body of spiritual descriptions intersects to zero.

Hence, the logical conclusion that there is nothing there but measurement artifacts.

[Fade]

What you fail to get from Fade's post is that the descriptions of spiritual experiences are not merely different, but mutually exclusive. There is no "common ground" that all of these experiences can rest on, unlike being hit with a bat or eating ice cream. The body of spiritual descriptions intersects to zero.

Hence, the logical conclusion that there is nothing there but measurement artifacts.

You need to give me lessons in how to phrase things in such a way that everyone understands them. I tend to speak to people as if I were speaking to myself. I suppose I just assume they know what I'm getting on about.

Suppose it's my fault Beleth wasn't parsing me at all.

[Aoidoi]

Beleth, just want to say you do bring up some interesting points. I am more or less an atheist and tend to disagree with your conclusions, but I do appreciate you asking the questions.

Not sure why you got such a rough reaction, I hardly think someone being polite and making interesting arguments deserves to be labeled a troll.

I do especially find the definition of God as a subset of human experience to be interesting. I've been bouncing around the idea that "god" is merely a name for personal ideas and motivations (rather than an actual extant being). Haven't got a solid concept, but it's interesting to think about. :)

btw, I've got no problem with deists, as there's an implicit statement that since God is unknowable there's no set doctrine that is The One True Path. :)

(oh, and in this forum every thread is required to define agnostic and atheist at least once :D)

[Beleth]

Thanks, Aoidoi.

People always react harshly at first when their core beliefs are questioned. They an either learn from those reactions, or keep their minds closed. I see a lot of equating of "theist" with "idiot" here, and if that's one of one's core beliefs, then yeah, someone like me is going to get harsh reactions.

There are a lot of theist idiots, to be sure. What some people can't understand is when someone actually has considered all the evidence (or lack thereof) and still comes to a conclusion where there's a place for God - in other words, that there are some theist non-idiots.

[Aoidoi]

Oh, I've met some very intelligent theists. People who have thought and considered and have come to the conclusion that God exists. I don't agree with them, but other than the occassional prodding (mostly for conversational fun) I generally don't try to change their minds. I have come to a set of conclusions on how to live my life, but they're subject to change. They have different conclusions and seem to do quite well living their lives within their framework. I might think they're wrong, in a couple cases I wonder if they're deluded or need to seek some professional help, but I don't get upset about them having different opinions.

Everybody has to chose how they want to live, and I don't want to ruin life for other people. Some people seem unable to live without something that an omnipotent creator brings them (whether it be purpose, or moral guidance, or whatever). So long as their choices make them happy and are not destructive I won't interfere.

I won't argue that their god is just a kind of IPU (wrenching back on topic...). They are coming from the argument with a different perspective and I sincerely doubt anyone will be convinced by what amounts to a clever debate tactic. If someone flat out insists that God exists or that Hong Kong doesn't I might probe a bit to see why they have that belief and if it's something that could potentially be changed by discussion, but I'm not going to accuse them of idiocy for disagreeing with me.

The God I don't believe in knows that I make enough mistakes to never be entirely certain of anything. :)

Anyway, guess that rambled a bit. To pull it a bit more on topic, I have to go with the demonstrability and mundanity of HK as breaking the analogy. The issue with the IPU is merely an example of how if God is unknowable (and it says so in the Bible) then accepting him leaves the door open to an infinite number of non-provable beings.

I take Deism as a bit of a special case since there seems pretty clearly to have been a beginning of the universe, and speculation on the cause is hardly likely to lead to crusades or inquisitions. :)

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Yahzi
What you fail to get from Fade's post is that the descriptions of spiritual experiences are not merely different, but mutually exclusive. There is no "common ground" that all of these experiences can rest on, unlike being hit with a bat or eating ice cream. The body of spiritual descriptions intersects to zero.

Hence, the logical conclusion that there is nothing there but measurement artifacts. And yet we know when someone is describing a god, or an encounter with a god.

Maybe "work of art" is a better analogy than "cloud" is. One could describe a painting, or a symphony, or a sculpture, and say that they are all works of art. Yet the words one uses to describe "a painting" are mutually exclusive from the words one uses to describe "a symphony". That doesn't mean that works of art can be logically concluded to be nothing more than measurement artifacts.


But you know what? This is a total sidetrack to my premise anyway. I'm not arguing that an interfering God exists...

[Yahzi]

Aoidoi
If someone flat out insists that God exists or that Hong Kong doesn't I might probe a bit to see why they have that belief and if it's something that could potentially be changed by discussion, but I'm not going to accuse them of idiocy for disagreeing with me.
You won't call someone an idiot for not believing that Hong Kong exists?

Then what you are really saying is that you won't call anyone an idiot.

I suppose if we go further down this path of non-absolutness, you wouldn't call someone who thought that Jews should be burned in ovens an idiot.

If you can't accuse people of idiocy over something as obvious as the empirical existance of a city, then how are you going to object when they start rounding up people and putting them in ovens based on the existance of a world-wide conspiracy by aliens from Satan?

But, like Socrates, you are free to espouse any nonsense you want, secure in the knowledge that the rest of us will prevent the Nazis from taking over.

Beleth
What some people can't understand is when someone actually has considered all the evidence (or lack thereof) and still comes to a conclusion where there's a place for God - in other words, that there are some theist non-idiots
If you replace the rather broad "idiot" with "rational," then I disagree. Yes, it is possible to be a theist without being an complete idiot; but no, it is not possible to consider all the evidence and still rationally conclude the existance of god.

And yet we know when someone is describing a god, or an encounter with a god.
No, we don't. Consider that aboriginal descriptions of encounters with gods were taken by early Christians as encounters with demons. Your liberal faith might define "anything" as god, but lots of faiths have actual defintions of god (omnimax, created the world, elephant trunks, twin brother of destruction, etc.) which are simply incompatible.

One could describe a painting, or a symphony, or a sculpture, and say that they are all works of art.
You still don't get it. The description of various works of art are not mutually contradictory and exclusive. The descriptions of god are. While it is true that you can define a category of gods, all of whom share certain characteristics, it is not the case that you can actually instantiate each of those objects, because instantiating any particular one means that the others cannot be instantiated.

The descriptive category is a group of mutually exclusive objects. Only one of them can correspond to actually reality. This is unlike any of the other descriptions you have suggested, and indeed unlike almost all ordinary descriptions of ordinary objects.


I'm not arguing that an interfering God exists
Then you have no argument at all. I leave you with a quote from a notorious theiving coyote dog:

"If the existance of a thing is indistinguishable from it's non-existance, then that thing does not exist. We call this Reason." - Yahzi

[Beleth]

Yahzi, you are looking at this from a decidedly Christian, the-only-God-is-Yahweh point of view. There are many faiths that are less restrictive in their mutual-exclusion viewpoint. What is a demon, anyway, but a different type of god?

"it is not possible to consider all the evidence and still rationally conclude the existance of god."

*sigh* Repeat after me:
After considering all the evidence, it is just as rational to conclude the existence of a God as it is to conclude the non-existence of a God.

That's because there is no evidence either way, unless you believe the existence of Anything At All is evidence.


The descriptions of a painting are mutually exclusive with the descriptions of a symphony.


I find I can not take the arguments of someone who quotes himself seriously. Especially when the quote is just flat out nonsense. That's not even remotely what we call Reason. It's not even what we call common sense.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Yahzi

My bat/ice cream analogy is not a strawman. Every person who gets hit in the head with a bat describes the experience in some way that is compatible with all other bat-hitting descriptions. However a definition is expressed, the fact remains that we can all agree on what getting hit by a bat means.


If one is to make the mistaken assumption that god is an outside influence then it is not a straw man.

But if we assume that god is solely relegated to the realm of psychological experinece then it is a great big straw man.

Why not alow for the defintion that god is a human experinece with reference to the realm outside the cranium.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Why not alow for the defintion that god is a human experinece with reference to the realm outside the cranium.
Well, the simple answer is because that's not what the believers are arguing for. They aren't willing to define god as merely a psychological interpretation.

Pretty much nobody is arguing for that position, actually. It's like the theory that God just created the universe 12 seconds ago, complete with the appearence of past history. That theory solves a lot of problems (including the problem of evil!), but for some reason, nobody (neither beleivers or athiests) is willing to consider it seriously.