You won't find God in the dictionary.

Homepage Forums Atheism You won't find God in the dictionary.

This topic contains 171 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer 11 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 172 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #27403

    Ivy
    Participant
    #27404

    Poseidon might get angry and cause an earthquake when He finds out His name is being linked to a creationist “scientific” article where long debunked arguments, like Paley’s Watchmaker, are now being cited as “evidence” for the existence of another god.

    Maybe He won’t as he is one of the dead gods and science has explained that gods don’t cause earthquakes as religious people believed for centuries. Gods are now removed from that gap in our knowledge.

    Seriously, you are offering an article that discusses “guided evolution” and “irreducible biochemical complexity” as scientific evidence that advances the argument for the existence of a god?

    #27405

    Geez, the article has a citation for the “work” of Michael Behe.I am being plagued with his arguments lately. He is a favorite of the Jehovah Witnesses and some of the Evangelical cult members that come a knocking on my door. I make sure to let the right one in 🙂

    #27406

    Ivy
    Participant
    #27409

    While I have often debunked Anselm’s Ontological argument and the improved upon version that Descartes (of all people) came up with, it has been a while since Gödel’s Theory has been offered as a proof. If you can debate the essence of Anselm’s argument with me I am prepared to tackle Gödel’s theory with you. I admit  I found it very tough going. Higher Order logic theory is very esoteric and even the authors of the study had trouble analyzing the logical steps of the “proof”.

    I would have something to say about their modified definition of D2 “An essence of an individual is a property that is necessarily implying any of its properties” and claiming that “the empty property (or self-difference) is an essence of every entity”. This is indeed different to what Anselm thought. Even though the coding seems very elegant I would want to know if they had issues with zero concatenation the first time they considered the “empty property”. Did they mean “zero” or “null” when defining “empty”? Would it have made any difference if it was an independent variable or part of a string? There could be a problem mixing formal language theory and higher order logical calculations. But let’s start at the beginning with Anselm and his ontological argument before we hit the calculus.

    Question: What do you think the computer scientists who programmed the machine meant by “not trivially irrational”? Were they talking about belief not being irrational or about irrational numbers used in their coding where maybe the product of two positive irrational numbers is non trivial irrationally if it produces a rational number?

    #27410

    After re-reading the above I think I have a twin brother.

    #27414

    Davis
    Participant

    Gödel’s “proof” is such an atrocious big hot mess, it is embarrassing, it is in fact so bad and full of layers upon layers of flaws, fallacies and “wtf? moments” that I cannot even remember the last time someone brought it up. Every axiom is dubious. Most of them haven’t been backed up by Gödel with proper explanations, one argues from ignorance, the final conclusion is a total conflation of the definition of religion and even if those axioms are sound (which they are not) the conclusion is a non-sequitur (as in the final conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the axioms) and ultimately if the arguments were even sound (they aren’t) it would lead to a breakdown of rational and religious analysis.

    God is trivially irrational, and while some might really really really want God to be elevated beyond the absurdities of powerful transcendent pink unicorns dancing on the moon (because of history and numbers of believers and theology and cultural influence) God is not. God is as irrationally trivial as powerful transcendent pink unicorns dancing on the moon. There will come one day, hopefully, when this suddenly becomes clear (especially when to wipe away all the cultural and emotional baggage that comes with western God belief) and one goes “ufff…I can’t believe I ever thought God was some category apart from a absurd supernatural claims”. I hope at least most inquiring minds can get that far. If we were born in a country that didn’t have Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) then reaching this conclusion would be so so so so so much easier. The lingering toxic effects of 2000 years of Christ nonsense is hard to shake, despite it’s absurdities.

    • This reply was modified 11 months, 1 week ago by  Davis.
    #27417

    Ivy
    Participant

    @Reg

    Question: What do you think the computer scientists who programmed the machine meant by “not trivially irrational”? Were they talking about belief not being irrational or about irrational numbers used in their coding where maybe the product of two positive irrational numbers is non trivial irrationally if it produces a rational number?

     

    I think (as far as I can tell) they were at least talking about subsections vi and vii on pg 5. Since it’s a PDF I can’t copy paste LOL

     

    #27418

    Ivy
    Participant

    @davis

    Gödel’s “proof” is such an atrocious big hot mess, it is embarrassing, it is in fact so bad and full of layers upon layers of flaws, fallacies and “wtf?

    can you provide an example? The onus is on you 😉

    #27419

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I feel that relying on the adjective “positive” is a flaw at the beginning.  “Positive” is a concept limited to human beings, or at best, living things, and it means “conducive to thriving, surviving and/or reproducing in an ethical way”.  It doesn’t apply to the universe at large.  Personally I think they’re confusing a number of different meanings of “positive”.  For example, the moral and the existential senses.

    #27421

    Simon – I think “positive” in this case is related to the positive properties of a godlike entity (or better still a non-negative property) that can be perceived to exist. If we can mediate upon this concept, that “God” (whatever flavor) can be considered in our subjective minds then we can make the leap to imagining this god to exist objectively, in the “real world”. Ergo, god must exist in the positive sense.

    In short the premise of the ontological argument, from Anselm though to Descartes, Aquinas and even WL Craig whose partner we debated back in the day on TA, is that we can get from contemplating that “ a godlike being of which nothing greater can be conceived” to the conclusion that “a godlike being must therefore exist”. Basically if we can think it subjective it can exist objectively.

    The theist thinks atheism is the denial of the existence of God (again which god or which flavor?). Anselm set out to show the logical absurdity of this denial. According to him and the others listed above (mostly) in order to deny the existence of God we must have a concept of god in our minds in the first place. We must know what we are denying.  We are even at fault for rejecting the concept of god in our subjective minds. This is also what Gödel is also trying to demonstrate but based upon his own axioms as does the latter computer experiment which tries to avoid modal collapse (more on that point after I get some sandwiches).

    But first I must admit that while I know Happy is imaginary I still want to do serious drugs with him. OK, where is that rabbit hole…

    The flaws in this argument are relativity obvious as Einstein, a friend of Gödel might have said. The major error with it is that a real god, one that existed in actuality would necessarily be greater than the “greatest” one conceived in the mind. The concept in the first place cannot ever be of the greatest possible being because it would be “more great” if it existed in reality.

    He also misrepresents what Atheism is. It is not the denial of god(s) existing but the lack of belief in them, based upon a complete lack of evidence for them and no reasonable argument put forward by anyone that has not just been debunked but also demolished.

    I have no concept of a particular god in my head. I try to formulate one but I am always forced to evict them because they quickly become logical absurdities. Theists keep telling us about their gods and that they have become real to them but remain incapable of explaining what that God entity is. They will always duck and dodge answering it by offering up what other people say it is. They introduce arguments as evidence and seldom (except for Jehovah Witnesses and their ilk) even let us know if they believe in the personal god of the Bible or a Spinozian type god of deism that is not concerned with human affairs. Whether it is Anselm or Gödel or some Internet preacher who is just a liar for Jesus, no definition of their god is given. They think we understand what they are talking about but they don’t even seem to know themselves. Yet they will argue all day long that we are wrong and they are right and never admit when we debunk their “evidence”.

    But it keeps the premise of my post alive. The god of their belief is not the god of their argument.

    #27423

    Davis
    Participant

    Example of an axiom:

    Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.

    This is a stinking mess of an axiom. A very unwise way to  present an argument. It is not just confusing and ambiguous in is best reading but I think the overwhelming majority of people would understand it at all.

    To paraphrase, religions in general (as put in practice) can be bad (think inquizitions and holy wars) but the noble pursuit of scientific/cosmological/human/cultural inquiry is a good (just as in medical research is a good). But instead of saying this he uses the uncountable world for religion (the abstract concept of religion) along with science (in the previous axiom) after previously using the term religion as religions in practice (Judaic thought and rituals for example). And the second use of religion (the abstract concept of religion) is actually a new definition, one almost nobody really uses: the collective study of science and theology. He basically inserts religion into an argument that doesn’t need it. If it was phrased like this:

    While some medical research in practice can be bad (a lot more than we think) like tests on animal, botched tests where humans die, Nazi experiments, involuntary experimentation, corporate funded research with manipulative results etc…) medical research as a general persuit is good. The same can be said for any science. Godel tries to sneak in theology like it is a science (even though it is not). Anyone can easily name a dozen things that come from the sciences that is constructive (objective knowledge and new technologies) and that isn’t controversial. What are the noble accomplishments of theology other than speculation about a spectacular claim lacking evidence and full of logical errors and fallacious reasoning? This is yet another sneaky play on words, redefining something to either obfuscate the subject matter or make it more conducive to your argument. Something Jordan Peterson is a genius at. Theology and science are virtually polar opposites with some theology trying to mimic scientific language and reasoning but frequently not…all based on absurd assumptions.

    #27424

    Ivy
    Participant

    @Reg

    I have no concept of a particular god in my head. I try to formulate one but I am always forced to evict them because they quickly become logical absurdities.

    One of the ways that I think atheism goes south is this very point right here. It seems as though atheists pose the argument that there must be some sort of scientific paper or journal article that will satisfy your questions. Science of any discipline has its strength and weaknesses. But the first thing you have to always understand is what precisely you are reading. Even the most polished and eloquent research paper is going to have its limitations. Whether it is because of what you were trying to measure, or just the simple fact that the ideas are just emerging (Which I think is the case with this one). It’s an idea. An imperfect idea. But it’s something to consider at the very least.

    You keep searching for a definition of God. Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe you can’t define God?

    Let’s follow that logic for one second. Suppose I asked you to define yourself. How would you define yourself? You’re a human being, a man and yada yada…But do those types of descriptors really define you?

    I could tell you that God is in my opinion like the heartbeat of the universe. Whatever energy that flows in everything that exists. And I do believe that God exists. But there’s no human being in this world that can produce a research journal article to prove that to you. Just like I tell you that I do believe in God, you tell me that you don’t. You look at research in a way that is biased towards not believing in God. I look at research in a way that is biased towards believing in God. At least to be intellectually honest enough to admit that you are biased. And so am I. Whatever education or life experiences that you have had has contributed to your own personal bias. The same can be said for every human being on this planet. It’s depends where you were raised, what books you read etc…And it also is determined based on your life experiences.

    To me, it seems that the fact that we have always believed in some type of God, and that our brains are wired to believe in one, And to take that a step further, you can find evidence in any discipline to support the existence of God. It just depends on your own personal bias how you square that away.

    So if you are holding your breath for some scientist to come along with a research article that proves the existence of God, good luck with that. These type of argument is the best anybody can do. Particularly if you were looking for answers outside of any type of subjective experience.

    I think that you don’t believe in God because of your own personal experiences. I think you connect way too strongly the things that you have seen happen in the name of organized religion and that has skewed your opinion to an extreme.

    #27425

    I think that you don’t believe in God because of your own personal experiences. I think you connect way too strongly the things that you have seen happen in the name of organized religion and that has skewed your opinion to an extreme.

    A regular comment that theists make to me. Absolutely wrong.

    You look at research in a way that is biased towards not believing in God.

    See the answer above.

    You keep searching for a definition of God. Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe you can’t define God?

    I don’t. I simply ask that people who make the positive assertion that “god exists” to explain what they mean by the term “god”. They don’t or can’t offer me one and when they try to they then support it with arguments that are not consistent with the god they describe.

    And I do believe that God exists

    OK, but what god is it that you believe exists. Is it Yahweh, the Christian God, Poseidon the god of the Sea, Some version of the Biblical god or just the non-interventionist god that is “just a energy force”. If you say you believe in something you must be able to describe it.

    So if you are holding your breath for some scientist to come along with a research article that proves the existence of God, good luck with that.

    I absolutely am not. I don’t know how you got there. How many times do I have to say that I am never looking for definitive proof, only a sliver of evidence to suggest what theists claim might be true.

    To me, it seems that the fact that we have always believed in some type of God, and that our brains are wired to believe in one.

    Again that is wrong. I already wrote about our evolved tendency for magical thinking. Our unreasoned minds will accept supernatural explanations when none other are available.

    And to take that a step further, you can find evidence in any discipline to support the existence of God.

    You absolutely cannot. You can finds arguments in favor but again arguments are not evidence. If the evidence for a  god was that widely available we would all have access to it. But we don’t because there is no evidence.

    If your God is “Energy” then why did you introduce arguments from Creationists? The god of your belief is not the god of your arguments.

     

     

    #27426

    @davis, I was going to critique that to. It is a poor conditional variable to include.

    RE Jordon Peterson, you might like the first video in Sunday School today where Hitchens had to come back from the dead to show him how its done 🙂

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 172 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.