The the God hypothesis a scientific hypothesis? - Page 9

dafydd · 22nd April 2012, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

So once you rule out one by one each and every naturalistic explanation and there is none left. What's next?

(I mean can you be a bit more specific in the area of how you would go about trying to establish which and what god caused this?)

There is always another naturalistic explanation.

Dinwar · 22nd April 2012, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Resurreccion

(I mean can you be a bit more specific in the area of how you would go about trying to establish which and what god caused this?)

Until someone at least provides a definition for their particular god, there is no "what next". We say "At this time, we have no idea what happened. This is strange." and leave it at that.

If someone's willing to offer an explanation that actually explains what happened, and which includes a solid definition we can analyze, then we can start looking into that. But thus far, no one has offered to do so in this thread--gods remain undefined, though people insist on speculating about them. So as it stands right now, once all naturalistic explanations are ruled out the only thing to say is "I dunno".

Originally Posted by tsig

No paradox, just a god who likes to play hide and seek with humanity.

A god who hides from detection is pretty pathetic. I mean, if annnnoid is right gods have less impact on reality than 'shrooms do. westprog is giving gods even less credit--they have less impact on reality than 'shrooms, AND they're cowards. Resurreccion is playing "what if" and insisting we analyze some made-up experiment that's never happened in order to prove that we're open-minded enough for him, so he hasn't even gotten to the point of talking about gods. The gods have gone from omnipotent beings worthy of fear and worship to things only capable of causing hallucinations.

The Norseman · 22nd April 2012, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

This sounds like a bit of a tongue twister. Combined with the butterfly effect, this could result in some interesting effects. There are many possibilities depending on the kind of God existence relationship you are considering.

I would point out a distinction here, it is more apt to rephrase "undetectable god", with undetected god. Because the former is suggesting that god is undetectable in any circumstances, whereas we are actually only considering a god which is currently undetected, by science.

Also omnipotent/present/scient etc are a hot potato along with infinity and should be considered as a separate issue. As they are a human invention and may be absurd in reality. Or if true in some sense, beyond our comprehension.

Thought you defined 'god' as that which created the known universe and nothing else.

You seem like a nice chap, but it's seriously irritating to see you play so fast and loose with your 'god' definitions in every thread -- and sometimes within the same thread.

Seriously, if you're trying to inform people of what it's like to be a legitimate mystic and/or what benefits mysticism provides, you're not doing a stellar job.

However, I also believe you have remained patient and never insulting, so let me say that I sincerely appreciate that.

Dinwar · 22nd April 2012, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I would point out a distinction here, it is more apt to rephrase "undetectable god", with undetected god. Because the former is suggesting that god is undetectable in any circumstances, whereas we are actually only considering a god which is currently undetected, by science.

They amount to the same thing, though--whether it's undetectable or merely undetected, it's still entirely unknown and any statements about its nature are mere speculation.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

You seem like a nice chap, but it's seriously irritating to see you play so fast and loose with your 'god' definitions in every thread -- and sometimes within the same thread.

This is precisely why we need a set definition, at least to begin with, Resurreccion. Without a firm definition of what we're talking about we end up not talking about anything at all. Not having a definition for what we're dealing with necessarily sets up a situation where the goalposts cannot remain stationary.

annnnoid · 22nd April 2012, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

A god who hides from detection is pretty pathetic. I mean, if annnnoid is right gods have less impact on reality than 'shrooms do. westprog is giving gods even less credit--they have less impact on reality than 'shrooms, AND they're cowards. Resurreccion is playing "what if" and insisting we analyze some made-up experiment that's never happened in order to prove that we're open-minded enough for him, so he hasn't even gotten to the point of talking about gods. The gods have gone from omnipotent beings worthy of fear and worship to things only capable of causing hallucinations.

I notice, Dinwar, that though you have supposedly put me on ‘ignore’, you don’t seem to feel any reluctance to malign my comments. You suggest ‘God’ has all but no impact on reality. I have explicitly and repeatedly described the single most significant area of reality that exists...subjective experience...which is exactly where ‘God’ most directly and substantively impacts a very great many people’s reality. That you have no means of scientifically adjudicating a phenomenon does not mean it does not occur.

As for this ‘I can prove I love my wife’ stuff.... there is a hole in your reasoning big enough to drive a universe through. If you are so convinced that you can ‘prove’ that you love your wife then I suggest you start a thread in the Science / Technology section. That’s where most of the JREF ‘scientists’ hang out.

I am a scientist and I am married. I love my wife and I can prove it. Do you, as a scientist, believe that it is scientifically possible for me to prove that I love my wife.

Take a poll. If it is anything less than 100% ‘No’ I will be very surprised.

To put it simply, there are two possibilities...either you are that convinced that you love your wife...in which case I would say ‘good on ya mate’ (but I’d still suggest you review some critical thinking issues).... or... you are that uncertain that you require some form of external validation....in which case I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions (but I’d still suggest you review some critical thinking issues).

dafydd · 22nd April 2012, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

You seem like a nice chap, but it's seriously irritating to see you play so fast and loose with your 'god' definitions in every thread -- and sometimes within the same thread.

It is hard to follow punshhh. He does tend to make up his own definitions of words.

punshhh · 22nd April 2012, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Thought you defined 'god' as that which created the known universe and nothing else.

As any attempt to ascribe any attributes to, or a definition of, God/god is speculation. I freely speculate on whatever area available. This necessarily includes various definitions of God/god.

Quote:

You seem like a nice chap, but it's seriously irritating to see you play so fast and loose with your 'god' definitions in every thread -- and sometimes within the same thread.

Within the discipline of philosophy it is quite normal to define your terms at the beginning of a discussion and remain with that definition while making your point. Provided the debaters accept the definition a coherent debate can be engaged in. It allows one to step outside the dictionary or parochially confined definitions and in reference to God or metaphysics is essential.

Quote:

Seriously, if you're trying to inform people of what it's like to be a legitimate mystic and/or what benefits mysticism provides, you're not doing a stellar job.

I am in for the long haul, on occasion there is a meeting of minds of some sort.

Quote:

However, I also believe you have remained patient and never insulting, so let me say that I sincerely appreciate that.

Likewise I'm sure.

Last of the Fraggles · 22nd April 2012, 10:58 AM

I'm skipping a few pages so it may already have been said but if the existence of God isn't a hypothesis that science can test then exactly what kind of hypothesis is it and what tools should we be using instead?

It seems to me as if science is pretty much the tool we have for testing whether something fits with reality so in the absence of a better alternative I think that's the one we need to stick with.

If the argument is that science can never ever know anything about this 'god' thing whatever it is then not only does this god thing seem a bit irrelevant to the real world but I also have to ask what all these religions are blethering on about when they tell us stuff about things that the clearly can't know.

Dinwar · 22nd April 2012, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

As any attempt to ascribe any attributes to, or a definition of, God/god is speculation. I freely speculate on whatever area available.

But what you CAN'T do is pretend that this is anything other than playing make-believe. Since you admit there's no way to define gods, there's no way to know anything about them--any knowledge would allow us to establish at least a tentative definition. The only honest position is to dismiss the entire issue. If you want to talk about it you're limited to conversations on the level of "What could kill Superman?", which no one would pretend is a serious issue, scientific, philosophical, or otherwise.

Quote:

Within the discipline of philosophy it is quite normal to define your terms at the beginning of a discussion and remain with that definition while making your point.

So you're saying that God is philosophical, not scientific, and therefore consistency is not required. God can mean anything you want it to mean--for the duration of that conversation.

dafydd · 22nd April 2012, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

I

If the argument is that science can never ever know anything about this 'god' thing whatever it is then not only does this god thing seem a bit irrelevant to the real world but I also have to ask what all these religions are blethering on about when they tell us stuff about things that the clearly can't know.

Science cannot tell us anything about the invisible pink flying unicorns either.

tsig · 22nd April 2012, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by annnnoid

I notice, Dinwar, that though you have supposedly put me on ‘ignore’, you don’t seem to feel any reluctance to malign my comments. You suggest ‘God’ has all but no impact on reality. I have explicitly and repeatedly described the single most significant area of reality that exists...subjective experience...which is exactly where ‘God’ most directly and substantively impacts a very great many people’s reality. That you have no means of scientifically adjudicating a phenomenon does not mean it does not occur.

As for this ‘I can prove I love my wife’ stuff.... there is a hole in your reasoning big enough to drive a universe through. If you are so convinced that you can ‘prove’ that you love your wife then I suggest you start a thread in the Science / Technology section. That’s where most of the JREF ‘scientists’ hang out.

I am a scientist and I am married. I love my wife and I can prove it. Do you, as a scientist, believe that it is scientifically possible for me to prove that I love my wife.

Take a poll. If it is anything less than 100% ‘No’ I will be very surprised.

To put it simply, there are two possibilities...either you are that convinced that you love your wife...in which case I would say ‘good on ya mate’ (but I’d still suggest you review some critical thinking issues).... or... you are that uncertain that you require some form of external validation....in which case I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions (but I’d still suggest you review some critical thinking issues).

In his most extraordinary book, "one of the great clinical writers of the 20th century" (The New York Times) recounts the case histories of patients lost in the bizarre, apparently inescapable world of neurological disorders. Oliver Sacks's The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat tells the stories of individuals afflicted with fantastic perceptual and intellectual aberrations: patients who have lost their memories and with them the greater part of their pasts; who are no longer able to recognize people and common objects; who are stricken with violent tics and grimaces or who shout involuntary obscenities; whose limbs have become alien; who have been dismissed as retarded yet are gifted with uncanny artistic or mathematical talents.

Dinwar · 22nd April 2012, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by annnnoid

As for this ‘I can prove I love my wife’ stuff.... there is a hole in your reasoning big enough to drive a universe through. If you are so convinced that you can ‘prove’ that you love your wife then I suggest you start a thread in the Science / Technology section. That’s where most of the JREF ‘scientists’ hang out.

If someone can point out, absent any insults to my ability to analyze data, how my evidence for loving my wife is a scientific or technological question I'll be happy to do as annnnoid suggests. However, I will point out that I've never given my definition--and that any assumptions anyone makes about my definition are entirely unwarranted, since I've provided no data on this subject.

To say anything about my love for my wife, even that it is a scientific issue, without knowing what my definition is is akin to saying anything about gods without first defining them--it's meaningless, as there's simply no way to evaluate the claim. It could certainly be right; weirder things have happened. But if so, it's by nothing more than random chance. And there's no way to evaluate whether the statement is correct or not. It's impossible to say whether my love for my wife is a scientific or technological issue--it could be a financial one, or a sociological one, or a tactical one (we've both been in situations where we had to make such choices). Similarly, without a definition for a god any statement we make could be true, false, or completely nonsensical--and we have no way of knowing, because we don't even know what we're talking about. Simply put, there's no way for us to evaluate any statement until we define the system we're making that statement about. And by saying that gods are undetectable or undetected, theists admit that they are also undefined.

ETA: I should point out that the only reason I brought up loving my wife is that it was a counter-argument to something someone on annnnoid's side said. I'll be the first to admit most people don't worry about questions like that; however, questions like that aren't unanswerable, they're merely difficult to answer. And that was my entire point--just because one person couldn't define something, doesn't mean it's undefinable.

catsmate1 · 22nd April 2012, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

So whatever happened to Limbo?

The official RCC teaching is a little fuzzy on the matter, it's not a part of official church doctrine.

dafydd · 22nd April 2012, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by punshhh

As any attempt to ascribe any attributes to, or a definition of, God/god is speculation. I freely speculate on whatever area available. This necessarily includes various definitions of God/god.

Does that include the definition ''imaginary''?

punshhh · 23rd April 2012, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

They amount to the same thing, though--whether it's undetectable or merely undetected, it's still entirely unknown and any statements about its nature are mere speculation.

From our perspective their interpretation amounts to the same thing. But in terms of defining a god they are very different.

An undetectable god is undetectable to a highly evolved life form with understanding far beyond our own by definition, indeed undetectable to another god. While a currently undetected god may be detectable to this life form, while remaining undetectable to humanity.

By insisting they amount to the same thing you are ruling out the definition of a currently undetected god.

Which brings me to the fundamental point to realise in speculating on gods, in my opinion, which is; The limitations of humanity's current understanding of reality must to factored in to any question or speculation on the nature of or existence of any kind of God.

Without this observation these discussions are naive and literally in the lap of the Gods.

Quote:

This is precisely why we need a set definition, at least to begin with, Resurreccion. Without a firm definition of what we're talking about we end up not talking about anything at all. Not having a definition for what we're dealing with necessarily sets up a situation where the goalposts cannot remain stationary.

Quite.

I would suggest a definition can be derived by distilling the commonly understood definitions provided by religion into their essential or primary points of definition.

I would then apply and compare these points to observations of the reality we are aware of to see what characteristics the definitions of god and the real world have in common.

This would give us something reasonable to consider in more detail.

To begin with I would suggest two primary points of definition of gods which in my opinion encapsulate the salient points.

1, a god exhibits intelligence.

2, a god created or was the origin of the known universe.

Aridas · 23rd April 2012, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

From our perspective their interpretation amounts to the same thing. But in terms of defining a god they are very different.

Yup.

Originally Posted by punshhh

Which brings me to the fundamental point to realise in speculating on gods, in my opinion, which is; The limitations of humanity's current understanding of reality must to factored in to any question or speculation on the nature of or existence of any kind of God.

Which... doesn't actually change any assessment of the situation. Without useful positive evidence for a concept, even if it is not logically contradictory and has no evidence against it, it is, of necessary, regulated to, at best, the "possible, but equally likely as the unknown, but large number of other models with equal explanatory power," and never remotely probable.

Originally Posted by punshhh

I would suggest a definition can be derived by distilling the commonly understood definitions provided by religion into their essential or primary points of definition.

I would then apply and compare these points to observations of the reality we are aware of to see what characteristics the definitions of god and the real world have in common.

This would give us something reasonable to consider in more detail.

To begin with I would suggest two primary points of definition of gods which in my opinion encapsulate the salient points.

1, a god exhibits intelligence.

2, a god created or was the origin of the known universe.

So, you're ruling out sets of myths/god concepts like ones found among... Greek, Norse, Chinese, Native American, Japanese, and so on, presumably? I'm not objecting, but "commonly understood definitions provided by religion" is overstating the case, I do believe.

dafydd · 23rd April 2012, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

To begin with I would suggest two primary points of definition of gods which in my opinion encapsulate the salient points.

1, a god exhibits intelligence.

2, a god created or was the origin of the known universe.

You left one out.
3, imaginary.

punshhh · 23rd April 2012, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Which... doesn't actually change any assessment of the situation. Without useful positive evidence for a concept, even if it is not logically contradictory and has no evidence against it, it is, of necessary, regulated to, at best, the "possible, but equally likely as the unknown, but large number of other models with equal explanatory power," and never remotely probable.

Its difficult to interpret what your saying here. Perhaps you can expand on it to draw out what you are saying.

Anyway, I would point out that humanity is not in a position to comment on how remotely probable one cosmogenesis in relation any other. All we can do is to compare the alternatives with the reality we know and muse over the possibilities.

Quote:

So, you're ruling out sets of myths/god concepts like ones found among... Greek, Norse, Chinese, Native American, Japanese, and so on, presumably? I'm not objecting, but "commonly understood definitions provided by religion" is overstating the case, I do believe.

Not at all, can you name a god who is not intelligent, or the creator/origin of our known existence?
Or are you referring to deities, who can be called gods, but are not the origin of our known existence?

punshhh · 23rd April 2012, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

You left one out.
3, imaginary.

I did read your alternative definition. I would not include it though as imaginary is not one of the defining characteristics in religions. Well apart from the atheist religion that is.

Stomatopoda · 23rd April 2012, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Not at all, can you name a god who is not intelligent, or the creator/origin of our known existence?

Yog-Sothoth.

dafydd · 23rd April 2012, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I did read your alternative definition. I would not include it though as imaginary is not one of the defining characteristics in religions. Well apart from the atheist religion that is.

There is no atheist religion, as you know. By the way, you promised to post some examples of my gibberish. How is the search going on? Ready to admit that you were wrong?

dafydd · 23rd April 2012, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Stomatopoda

Yog-Sothoth.

Some that come to mind are Kali, Ganesh and the Kitchen God.

dafydd · 23rd April 2012, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I did read your alternative definition. I would not include it though as imaginary is not one of the defining characteristics in religions. Well apart from the atheist religion that is.

All religions are based on something imaginary. Can you name one that isn't?

punshhh · 23rd April 2012, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Stomatopoda

Yog-Sothoth.

This a fictional character, it does have some interesting qualities though.

punshhh · 23rd April 2012, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

All religions are based on something imaginary. Can you name one that isn't?

I'm afraid this is your opinion, others may disagree with you. Unless of course you are prepared to provide proof of your assertions.

dafydd · 23rd April 2012, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I'm afraid this is your opinion, others may disagree with you. Unless of course you are prepared to provide proof of your assertions.

I cite the thousands of years of lack of proof.

dafydd · 23rd April 2012, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

This a fictional character, it does have some interesting qualities though.

Just like gods,they are fictional too, unless you can provide proof to the contrary.

Aridas · 23rd April 2012, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Its difficult to interpret what your saying here. Perhaps you can expand on it to draw out what you are saying.

Anyway, I would point out that humanity is not in a position to comment on how remotely probable one cosmogenesis in relation any other. All we can do is to compare the alternatives with the reality we know and muse over the possibilities.

Simply speaking, the acknowledgement that humanity does not know everything tends to be already included. That does not, however, lend any validity to any explanation that has no actual evidence for it.

Given that, theoretically, humanity may well never know everything, all humanity can ever do is is make logical assessments of the information at hand. Your argument here can be applied equally well for whether or not evolution actually happens. It can be applied to invisible, but slightly dumb aliens that have been manipulating humans for thousands of years after being trapped here on Earth by an accident. It can be applied to whether gravity actually exists. It can be applied to whether, like in most creation myths, the Earth is the only thing that's really in existence, the rest just being a subset of Earth.

Originally Posted by punshhh

Not at all, can you name a god who is not intelligent, or the creator/origin of our known existence?
Or are you referring to deities, who can be called gods, but are not the origin of our known existence?

So, in short, you're making it an or, not an and, which means that you're being far, far too vague for any judgments or much analysis to be made.

dafydd · 23rd April 2012, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

So, in short, you're making it an or, not an and, which means that you're being far, far too vague for any judgments or much analysis to be made.

That is punshhh's modus operandi in a nutshell. Unknown uknowns is his catch phrase.

punshhh · 23rd April 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I cite the thousands of years of lack of proof.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

punshhh · 23rd April 2012, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Given that, theoretically, humanity may well never know everything, all humanity can ever do is is make logical assessments of the information at hand. Your argument here can be applied equally well for whether or not evolution actually happens. It can be applied to invisible, but slightly dumb aliens that have been manipulating humans for thousands of years after being trapped here on Earth by an accident. It can be applied to whether gravity actually exists. It can be applied to whether, like in most creation myths, the Earth is the only thing that's really in existence, the rest just being a subset of Earth.

I am specifically addressing the issue at hand, ie a God/god hypothesis.

Quote:

So, in short, you're making it an or, not an and, which means that you're being far, far too vague for any judgments or much analysis to be made.

Are you able to consider the definition I have offered?
If not perhaps you would like to offer an alternative definition.

dafydd · 23rd April 2012, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It is when thousands of years have not produced one iota of evidence for the existence of any gods.

dafydd · 23rd April 2012, 12:11 PM

Punshhh, can you name a god that wasn't invented by mankind? Then we can discuss your definition of the word ''definition''

tsig · 23rd April 2012, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by punshhh

This a fictional character, it does have some interesting qualities though.

So is any god I ever heard of but maybe you have a different one?

tsig · 23rd April 2012, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Then what is evidence of absence?

The evidence that I have an angel standing by my side is absent, so do I assume there's one there?

dafydd · 23rd April 2012, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Then what is evidence of absence?

The evidence that I have an angel standing by my side is absent, so do I assume there's one there?

I have no evidence that Harvey the giant invisible rabbit is at my side, no evidence that a fairy sluagh is near me, no evidence that four dimensional dwarfs dressed in spandex are in my garden, so perhaps I can assume that they are there. That's where punshhh's logic leads to.

JoeBentley · 23rd April 2012, 03:52 PM

Seeing as how people despertly trying to find some rationalization for why the simple standards of evidence that we all live shouldn't apply to their pet woo have caused "Evidence of Absence" and "The Null Hypothesis" and even "Burden of Proof" to somehow become loaded terms so I break it down.

By definition in any universe things that actually do happen constitute only a small fraction of things that do happen. Therefore we know that things exists because of evidence in their favor, not lack of evidence that they don't.

As Dafydd (and thousands before him thousands of time) have explained again and again the problem with the "Can't prove it's not true" argument is that it literally works for any random idea people can pull from the ether.

Therefore the "I'm gonna make a statement and then make you jump through hoops to prove me wrong" style of arguing is anti-intellectual hogwash.

dafydd · 23rd April 2012, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Therefore the "I'm gonna make a statement and then make you jump through hoops to prove me wrong" style of arguing is anti-intellectual hogwash.

The onus is on the woos to jump through the hoops in order to prove their claim. The default position is no gods, no paranormal.

MattusMaximus · 23rd April 2012, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by punshhh

To begin with I would suggest two primary points of definition of gods which in my opinion encapsulate the salient points.

1, a god exhibits intelligence.

How do you measure intelligence? And is this just any old intelligence, or should it be superior to human intelligence? By some definitions, my cat is intelligent.

Quote:

2, a god created or was the origin of the known universe.

Okay, so this makes an argument for a deistic god at least. But such a god only got the universe started, and no longer interacts with it (one of my colleagues called it god going off for an eternal, cosmic coffee break). So if this is the limit of your definition of a god, then how do you know such a being interacts with the universe now? I assume that's where you're headed, but you need to be more specific.

And one more thing: based upon the language you are using, are you proposing the existence of more than one god? It seems so.

MattusMaximus · 23rd April 2012, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by punshhh

This a fictional character, it does have some interesting qualities though.

Is Thor a fictional character? Because there are a few people around now who actually worship Thor. Seriously.

22nd April 2012, 07:11 AM	#321
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,443	Originally Posted by Resurreccion So once you rule out one by one each and every naturalistic explanation and there is none left. What's next? (I mean can you be a bit more specific in the area of how you would go about trying to establish which and what god caused this?) There is always another naturalistic explanation.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

22nd April 2012, 08:26 AM	#322
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,898	Originally Posted by Resurreccion (I mean can you be a bit more specific in the area of how you would go about trying to establish which and what god caused this?) Until someone at least provides a definition for their particular god, there is no "what next". We say "At this time, we have no idea what happened. This is strange." and leave it at that. If someone's willing to offer an explanation that actually explains what happened, and which includes a solid definition we can analyze, then we can start looking into that. But thus far, no one has offered to do so in this thread--gods remain undefined, though people insist on speculating about them. So as it stands right now, once all naturalistic explanations are ruled out the only thing to say is "I dunno". Originally Posted by tsig No paradox, just a god who likes to play hide and seek with humanity. A god who hides from detection is pretty pathetic. I mean, if annnnoid is right gods have less impact on reality than 'shrooms do. westprog is giving gods even less credit--they have less impact on reality than 'shrooms, AND they're cowards. Resurreccion is playing "what if" and insisting we analyze some made-up experiment that's never happened in order to prove that we're open-minded enough for him, so he hasn't even gotten to the point of talking about gods. The gods have gone from omnipotent beings worthy of fear and worship to things only capable of causing hallucinations.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,898	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

22nd April 2012, 08:29 AM	#323
The Norseman I Void Warranties Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Treasure Valley Posts: 3,236	Originally Posted by punshhh This sounds like a bit of a tongue twister. Combined with the butterfly effect, this could result in some interesting effects. There are many possibilities depending on the kind of God existence relationship you are considering. I would point out a distinction here, it is more apt to rephrase "undetectable god", with undetected god. Because the former is suggesting that god is undetectable in any circumstances, whereas we are actually only considering a god which is currently undetected, by science. Also omnipotent/present/scient etc are a hot potato along with infinity and should be considered as a separate issue. As they are a human invention and may be absurd in reality. Or if true in some sense, beyond our comprehension. Thought you defined 'god' as that which created the known universe and nothing else. You seem like a nice chap, but it's seriously irritating to see you play so fast and loose with your 'god' definitions in every thread -- and sometimes within the same thread. Seriously, if you're trying to inform people of what it's like to be a legitimate mystic and/or what benefits mysticism provides, you're not doing a stellar job. However, I also believe you have remained patient and never insulting, so let me say that I sincerely appreciate that.
	__________________ "I have always thought that a wild animal never looks so well as when some obstacle of pronounced durability is between us." "Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics." -tsig

22nd April 2012, 08:37 AM	#324
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,898	Originally Posted by punshhh I would point out a distinction here, it is more apt to rephrase "undetectable god", with undetected god. Because the former is suggesting that god is undetectable in any circumstances, whereas we are actually only considering a god which is currently undetected, by science. They amount to the same thing, though--whether it's undetectable or merely undetected, it's still entirely unknown and any statements about its nature are mere speculation. Originally Posted by The Norseman You seem like a nice chap, but it's seriously irritating to see you play so fast and loose with your 'god' definitions in every thread -- and sometimes within the same thread. This is precisely why we need a set definition, at least to begin with, Resurreccion. Without a firm definition of what we're talking about we end up not talking about anything at all. Not having a definition for what we're dealing with necessarily sets up a situation where the goalposts cannot remain stationary.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,898	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

22nd April 2012, 09:27 AM	#325
annnnoid Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: canada Posts: 708	Originally Posted by Dinwar A god who hides from detection is pretty pathetic. I mean, if annnnoid is right gods have less impact on reality than 'shrooms do. westprog is giving gods even less credit--they have less impact on reality than 'shrooms, AND they're cowards. Resurreccion is playing "what if" and insisting we analyze some made-up experiment that's never happened in order to prove that we're open-minded enough for him, so he hasn't even gotten to the point of talking about gods. The gods have gone from omnipotent beings worthy of fear and worship to things only capable of causing hallucinations. I notice, Dinwar, that though you have supposedly put me on ‘ignore’, you don’t seem to feel any reluctance to malign my comments. You suggest ‘God’ has all but no impact on reality. I have explicitly and repeatedly described the single most significant area of reality that exists...subjective experience...which is exactly where ‘God’ most directly and substantively impacts a very great many people’s reality. That you have no means of scientifically adjudicating a phenomenon does not mean it does not occur. As for this ‘I can prove I love my wife’ stuff.... there is a hole in your reasoning big enough to drive a universe through. If you are so convinced that you can ‘prove’ that you love your wife then I suggest you start a thread in the Science / Technology section. That’s where most of the JREF ‘scientists’ hang out. I am a scientist and I am married. I love my wife and I can prove it. Do you, as a scientist, believe that it is scientifically possible for me to prove that I love my wife. Take a poll. If it is anything less than 100% ‘No’ I will be very surprised. To put it simply, there are two possibilities...either you are that convinced that you love your wife...in which case I would say ‘good on ya mate’ (but I’d still suggest you review some critical thinking issues).... or... you are that uncertain that you require some form of external validation....in which case I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions (but I’d still suggest you review some critical thinking issues).
	__________________ The above, of course, is irrelevant. …this space is reserved for what isn’t. Getting far away from normal…can be difficult.

22nd April 2012, 09:30 AM	#326
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,443	Originally Posted by The Norseman You seem like a nice chap, but it's seriously irritating to see you play so fast and loose with your 'god' definitions in every thread -- and sometimes within the same thread. It is hard to follow punshhh. He does tend to make up his own definitions of words.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

22nd April 2012, 10:57 AM	#327
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by The Norseman Thought you defined 'god' as that which created the known universe and nothing else. As any attempt to ascribe any attributes to, or a definition of, God/god is speculation. I freely speculate on whatever area available. This necessarily includes various definitions of God/god. Quote: You seem like a nice chap, but it's seriously irritating to see you play so fast and loose with your 'god' definitions in every thread -- and sometimes within the same thread. Within the discipline of philosophy it is quite normal to define your terms at the beginning of a discussion and remain with that definition while making your point. Provided the debaters accept the definition a coherent debate can be engaged in. It allows one to step outside the dictionary or parochially confined definitions and in reference to God or metaphysics is essential. Quote: Seriously, if you're trying to inform people of what it's like to be a legitimate mystic and/or what benefits mysticism provides, you're not doing a stellar job. I am in for the long haul, on occasion there is a meeting of minds of some sort. Quote: However, I also believe you have remained patient and never insulting, so let me say that I sincerely appreciate that. Likewise I'm sure.

22nd April 2012, 10:58 AM	#328
Last of the Fraggles Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,354	I'm skipping a few pages so it may already have been said but if the existence of God isn't a hypothesis that science can test then exactly what kind of hypothesis is it and what tools should we be using instead? It seems to me as if science is pretty much the tool we have for testing whether something fits with reality so in the absence of a better alternative I think that's the one we need to stick with. If the argument is that science can never ever know anything about this 'god' thing whatever it is then not only does this god thing seem a bit irrelevant to the real world but I also have to ask what all these religions are blethering on about when they tell us stuff about things that the clearly can't know.

22nd April 2012, 11:04 AM	#329
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,898	Originally Posted by punshhh As any attempt to ascribe any attributes to, or a definition of, God/god is speculation. I freely speculate on whatever area available. But what you CAN'T do is pretend that this is anything other than playing make-believe. Since you admit there's no way to define gods, there's no way to know anything about them--any knowledge would allow us to establish at least a tentative definition. The only honest position is to dismiss the entire issue. If you want to talk about it you're limited to conversations on the level of "What could kill Superman?", which no one would pretend is a serious issue, scientific, philosophical, or otherwise. Quote: Within the discipline of philosophy it is quite normal to define your terms at the beginning of a discussion and remain with that definition while making your point. So you're saying that God is philosophical, not scientific, and therefore consistency is not required. God can mean anything you want it to mean--for the duration of that conversation.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,898	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

22nd April 2012, 12:58 PM	#330
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,443	Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles I If the argument is that science can never ever know anything about this 'god' thing whatever it is then not only does this god thing seem a bit irrelevant to the real world but I also have to ask what all these religions are blethering on about when they tell us stuff about things that the clearly can't know. Science cannot tell us anything about the invisible pink flying unicorns either.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

22nd April 2012, 01:06 PM	#331
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,645	Originally Posted by annnnoid I notice, Dinwar, that though you have supposedly put me on ‘ignore’, you don’t seem to feel any reluctance to malign my comments. You suggest ‘God’ has all but no impact on reality. I have explicitly and repeatedly described the single most significant area of reality that exists...subjective experience...which is exactly where ‘God’ most directly and substantively impacts a very great many people’s reality. That you have no means of scientifically adjudicating a phenomenon does not mean it does not occur. As for this ‘I can prove I love my wife’ stuff.... there is a hole in your reasoning big enough to drive a universe through. If you are so convinced that you can ‘prove’ that you love your wife then I suggest you start a thread in the Science / Technology section. That’s where most of the JREF ‘scientists’ hang out. I am a scientist and I am married. I love my wife and I can prove it. Do you, as a scientist, believe that it is scientifically possible for me to prove that I love my wife. Take a poll. If it is anything less than 100% ‘No’ I will be very surprised. To put it simply, there are two possibilities...either you are that convinced that you love your wife...in which case I would say ‘good on ya mate’ (but I’d still suggest you review some critical thinking issues).... or... you are that uncertain that you require some form of external validation....in which case I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions (but I’d still suggest you review some critical thinking issues). In his most extraordinary book, "one of the great clinical writers of the 20th century" (The New York Times) recounts the case histories of patients lost in the bizarre, apparently inescapable world of neurological disorders. Oliver Sacks's The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat tells the stories of individuals afflicted with fantastic perceptual and intellectual aberrations: patients who have lost their memories and with them the greater part of their pasts; who are no longer able to recognize people and common objects; who are stricken with violent tics and grimaces or who shout involuntary obscenities; whose limbs have become alien; who have been dismissed as retarded yet are gifted with uncanny artistic or mathematical talents.

22nd April 2012, 01:43 PM	#332
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,898	Originally Posted by annnnoid As for this ‘I can prove I love my wife’ stuff.... there is a hole in your reasoning big enough to drive a universe through. If you are so convinced that you can ‘prove’ that you love your wife then I suggest you start a thread in the Science / Technology section. That’s where most of the JREF ‘scientists’ hang out. If someone can point out, absent any insults to my ability to analyze data, how my evidence for loving my wife is a scientific or technological question I'll be happy to do as annnnoid suggests. However, I will point out that I've never given my definition--and that any assumptions anyone makes about my definition are entirely unwarranted, since I've provided no data on this subject. To say anything about my love for my wife, even that it is a scientific issue, without knowing what my definition is is akin to saying anything about gods without first defining them--it's meaningless, as there's simply no way to evaluate the claim. It could certainly be right; weirder things have happened. But if so, it's by nothing more than random chance. And there's no way to evaluate whether the statement is correct or not. It's impossible to say whether my love for my wife is a scientific or technological issue--it could be a financial one, or a sociological one, or a tactical one (we've both been in situations where we had to make such choices). Similarly, without a definition for a god any statement we make could be true, false, or completely nonsensical--and we have no way of knowing, because we don't even know what we're talking about. Simply put, there's no way for us to evaluate any statement until we define the system we're making that statement about. And by saying that gods are undetectable or undetected, theists admit that they are also undefined. ETA: I should point out that the only reason I brought up loving my wife is that it was a counter-argument to something someone on annnnoid's side said. I'll be the first to admit most people don't worry about questions like that; however, questions like that aren't unanswerable, they're merely difficult to answer. And that was my entire point--just because one person couldn't define something, doesn't mean it's undefinable.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,898	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde. Last edited by Dinwar; 22nd April 2012 at 01:45 PM.

22nd April 2012, 02:42 PM	#333
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,095	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus So whatever happened to Limbo? The official RCC teaching is a little fuzzy on the matter, it's not a part of official church doctrine.

22nd April 2012, 05:23 PM	#334
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,443	Originally Posted by punshhh As any attempt to ascribe any attributes to, or a definition of, God/god is speculation. I freely speculate on whatever area available. This necessarily includes various definitions of God/god. Does that include the definition ''imaginary''?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd April 2012, 02:02 AM	#335
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Dinwar They amount to the same thing, though--whether it's undetectable or merely undetected, it's still entirely unknown and any statements about its nature are mere speculation. From our perspective their interpretation amounts to the same thing. But in terms of defining a god they are very different. An undetectable god is undetectable to a highly evolved life form with understanding far beyond our own by definition, indeed undetectable to another god. While a currently undetected god may be detectable to this life form, while remaining undetectable to humanity. By insisting they amount to the same thing you are ruling out the definition of a currently undetected god. Which brings me to the fundamental point to realise in speculating on gods, in my opinion, which is; The limitations of humanity's current understanding of reality must to factored in to any question or speculation on the nature of or existence of any kind of God. Without this observation these discussions are naive and literally in the lap of the Gods. Quote: This is precisely why we need a set definition, at least to begin with, Resurreccion. Without a firm definition of what we're talking about we end up not talking about anything at all. Not having a definition for what we're dealing with necessarily sets up a situation where the goalposts cannot remain stationary. Quite. I would suggest a definition can be derived by distilling the commonly understood definitions provided by religion into their essential or primary points of definition. I would then apply and compare these points to observations of the reality we are aware of to see what characteristics the definitions of god and the real world have in common. This would give us something reasonable to consider in more detail. To begin with I would suggest two primary points of definition of gods which in my opinion encapsulate the salient points. 1, a god exhibits intelligence. 2, a god created or was the origin of the known universe.

23rd April 2012, 02:47 AM	#336
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by punshhh From our perspective their interpretation amounts to the same thing. But in terms of defining a god they are very different. Yup. Originally Posted by punshhh Which brings me to the fundamental point to realise in speculating on gods, in my opinion, which is; The limitations of humanity's current understanding of reality must to factored in to any question or speculation on the nature of or existence of any kind of God. Which... doesn't actually change any assessment of the situation. Without useful positive evidence for a concept, even if it is not logically contradictory and has no evidence against it, it is, of necessary, regulated to, at best, the "possible, but equally likely as the unknown, but large number of other models with equal explanatory power," and never remotely probable. Originally Posted by punshhh I would suggest a definition can be derived by distilling the commonly understood definitions provided by religion into their essential or primary points of definition. I would then apply and compare these points to observations of the reality we are aware of to see what characteristics the definitions of god and the real world have in common. This would give us something reasonable to consider in more detail. To begin with I would suggest two primary points of definition of gods which in my opinion encapsulate the salient points. 1, a god exhibits intelligence. 2, a god created or was the origin of the known universe. So, you're ruling out sets of myths/god concepts like ones found among... Greek, Norse, Chinese, Native American, Japanese, and so on, presumably? I'm not objecting, but "commonly understood definitions provided by religion" is overstating the case, I do believe.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

23rd April 2012, 04:43 AM	#337
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,443	Originally Posted by punshhh To begin with I would suggest two primary points of definition of gods which in my opinion encapsulate the salient points. 1, a god exhibits intelligence. 2, a god created or was the origin of the known universe. You left one out. 3, imaginary.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd April 2012, 08:29 AM	#338
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Aridas Which... doesn't actually change any assessment of the situation. Without useful positive evidence for a concept, even if it is not logically contradictory and has no evidence against it, it is, of necessary, regulated to, at best, the "possible, but equally likely as the unknown, but large number of other models with equal explanatory power," and never remotely probable. Its difficult to interpret what your saying here. Perhaps you can expand on it to draw out what you are saying. Anyway, I would point out that humanity is not in a position to comment on how remotely probable one cosmogenesis in relation any other. All we can do is to compare the alternatives with the reality we know and muse over the possibilities. Quote: So, you're ruling out sets of myths/god concepts like ones found among... Greek, Norse, Chinese, Native American, Japanese, and so on, presumably? I'm not objecting, but "commonly understood definitions provided by religion" is overstating the case, I do believe. Not at all, can you name a god who is not intelligent, or the creator/origin of our known existence? Or are you referring to deities, who can be called gods, but are not the origin of our known existence?
	Last edited by punshhh; 23rd April 2012 at 08:31 AM.

23rd April 2012, 08:35 AM	#339
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by dafydd You left one out. 3, imaginary. I did read your alternative definition. I would not include it though as imaginary is not one of the defining characteristics in religions. Well apart from the atheist religion that is.

23rd April 2012, 08:44 AM	#340
Stomatopoda Muse Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 854	Originally Posted by punshhh Not at all, can you name a god who is not intelligent, or the creator/origin of our known existence? Yog-Sothoth.
Stomatopoda Muse Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 854

23rd April 2012, 09:38 AM	#341
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,443	Originally Posted by punshhh I did read your alternative definition. I would not include it though as imaginary is not one of the defining characteristics in religions. Well apart from the atheist religion that is. There is no atheist religion, as you know. By the way, you promised to post some examples of my gibberish. How is the search going on? Ready to admit that you were wrong?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd April 2012, 09:40 AM	#342
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,443	Originally Posted by Stomatopoda Yog-Sothoth. Some that come to mind are Kali, Ganesh and the Kitchen God.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd April 2012, 09:41 AM	#343
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,443	Originally Posted by punshhh I did read your alternative definition. I would not include it though as imaginary is not one of the defining characteristics in religions. Well apart from the atheist religion that is. All religions are based on something imaginary. Can you name one that isn't?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd April 2012, 09:58 AM	#344
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Stomatopoda Yog-Sothoth. This a fictional character, it does have some interesting qualities though.

23rd April 2012, 10:01 AM	#345
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by dafydd All religions are based on something imaginary. Can you name one that isn't? I'm afraid this is your opinion, others may disagree with you. Unless of course you are prepared to provide proof of your assertions.

23rd April 2012, 10:02 AM	#346
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,443	Originally Posted by punshhh I'm afraid this is your opinion, others may disagree with you. Unless of course you are prepared to provide proof of your assertions. I cite the thousands of years of lack of proof.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd April 2012, 10:03 AM	#347
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,443	Originally Posted by punshhh This a fictional character, it does have some interesting qualities though. Just like gods,they are fictional too, unless you can provide proof to the contrary.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd April 2012, 11:35 AM	#348
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by punshhh Its difficult to interpret what your saying here. Perhaps you can expand on it to draw out what you are saying. Anyway, I would point out that humanity is not in a position to comment on how remotely probable one cosmogenesis in relation any other. All we can do is to compare the alternatives with the reality we know and muse over the possibilities. Simply speaking, the acknowledgement that humanity does not know everything tends to be already included. That does not, however, lend any validity to any explanation that has no actual evidence for it. Given that, theoretically, humanity may well never know everything, all humanity can ever do is is make logical assessments of the information at hand. Your argument here can be applied equally well for whether or not evolution actually happens. It can be applied to invisible, but slightly dumb aliens that have been manipulating humans for thousands of years after being trapped here on Earth by an accident. It can be applied to whether gravity actually exists. It can be applied to whether, like in most creation myths, the Earth is the only thing that's really in existence, the rest just being a subset of Earth. Originally Posted by punshhh Not at all, can you name a god who is not intelligent, or the creator/origin of our known existence? Or are you referring to deities, who can be called gods, but are not the origin of our known existence? So, in short, you're making it an or, not an and, which means that you're being far, far too vague for any judgments or much analysis to be made.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

23rd April 2012, 11:42 AM	#349
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,443	Originally Posted by Aridas So, in short, you're making it an or, not an and, which means that you're being far, far too vague for any judgments or much analysis to be made. That is punshhh's modus operandi in a nutshell. Unknown uknowns is his catch phrase.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd April 2012, 11:51 AM	#350
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by dafydd I cite the thousands of years of lack of proof. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

23rd April 2012, 11:56 AM	#351
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Aridas Given that, theoretically, humanity may well never know everything, all humanity can ever do is is make logical assessments of the information at hand. Your argument here can be applied equally well for whether or not evolution actually happens. It can be applied to invisible, but slightly dumb aliens that have been manipulating humans for thousands of years after being trapped here on Earth by an accident. It can be applied to whether gravity actually exists. It can be applied to whether, like in most creation myths, the Earth is the only thing that's really in existence, the rest just being a subset of Earth. I am specifically addressing the issue at hand, ie a God/god hypothesis. Quote: So, in short, you're making it an or, not an and, which means that you're being far, far too vague for any judgments or much analysis to be made. Are you able to consider the definition I have offered? If not perhaps you would like to offer an alternative definition.

23rd April 2012, 12:07 PM	#352
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,443	Originally Posted by punshhh Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is when thousands of years have not produced one iota of evidence for the existence of any gods.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd April 2012, 12:11 PM	#353
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,443	Punshhh, can you name a god that wasn't invented by mankind? Then we can discuss your definition of the word ''definition''
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd April 2012, 03:01 PM	#354
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,645	Originally Posted by punshhh This a fictional character, it does have some interesting qualities though. So is any god I ever heard of but maybe you have a different one?

23rd April 2012, 03:05 PM	#355
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,645	Originally Posted by punshhh Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Then what is evidence of absence? The evidence that I have an angel standing by my side is absent, so do I assume there's one there?