From: Kothos 14/02/00 22:03:50 Subject: Chris and James post id: 38378 Chris and James I was wondering if you two could see your way to answering a couple of points for me with regards the Who made God? thread (No wait! Come back! I'm serious :-) As far as I know you've both espoused the following view, and Chris you've taken some time to explain it to me personally. Basically that the concept of God is a non-falsifiable proposition, that it can neither be proved nor disproved. I still disagree, and want to know what you have to say about this. I've maintained that the God as Catholics believe in Him, is self-contraditory. Everything Catholics feel they know about Him paints Him merely as a superhuman man, with human motivations and desires. Neverthless they also hold that he is omniscient and omnipotent. This is where I feel there is a contradiction. No omniscient/omnipotent infallible being may also possess motivations and desires, or even human emotions and desires (which we can be reasonably certain are a product of our own unique evolution). It's my view this is a logical contradiction (like 1=2). The non-falsifiability argument seems to be based on the fact that God, being omniscient and omnipotent, possesses all knowledge. We don't possess all knowledge, and so theoretically there may be something we don't know about, that may show up and explain these seeming contradictions. Here is where I have come up with a new thought (for me anyway). Surely the argument in the above paragraph rests on the fact that the only provable proposition is Descarte's I think, therefore, I am (the proof is that it is self-evident). All other propositions can not, and can never be, proven or disproven. (Aside: Descartes goes on to 'prove' the existence of God using this statement a little further on in his text, but fails miserably.) As such, even if the concept of God seems self-contradictory, we can never know if new information will come to light which will suddenly make the contradictions all go away. This seems like a weak argument to me because it applies to all propositions except for Descartes big primary one. For example, taking the mathematical statement 1+1=2, who's to say that just around the corner someone won't turn up new evidence indicating it is false? It certainly appears true, even by definition, but without possessing all knowledge, we can never be absolutely sure. Yet I don't see anybody claiming that whether 1+1=2 or 1+1<>2 (or 1+1 != 2) cannot be known one way or the other. By this argument, neither is it possible to say for sure if the sun will rise tomorrow, the moon will have changed into a cubic shape, air will suddenly become 90% argon, if the planets will start circling the sun the other way round or the definition of 'visible light' will have suddenly moved into the microwave section. That all these things won't happen is assumed wholeheartedly, so why can we not wholeheartedly assume that God does not exist? Anyway, I'm seriously obliged fellers for any responses you can give. I don't usually ask anything in the way of favours like this, but what the hell. Of course, I hereby give anyone else who wishes free rein to butt in and enlighten me as well - I wouldn't want to miss out on any by pretending anyone has a monopoly on the bright yellowy stuff (-: (Of course, I'm assuming here that I'll get any responses at all, and I may be way off the mark.) From: Min-Zhao Lee 14/02/00 22:11:32 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 38392 Well. I'm neither Chris nor James, but I'll get this rolling on the tracks. Um. First, wouldn't simply saying "There is a God. That's why things are why they are." be perfect for Occam's razor? If not, why not? (I lay no claims to the existence of god, I am merely wondering why this is not acceptable.) Are we assuming that, as given as an example, the sun will rise tomorrow? I thought more along the lines of assumption that there was nothing to affect the rotation of the earth or its orbit, hence there is nothing preventing the sun from rising tomorrow. 1 + 1 <> 2; 1 + 1 != 2... looks like BASIC; C. Would I be correct in assuming you are a programmer? From: Robert 14/02/00 22:12:38 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 38394 That's it Kothos! Pick a definition of God and attack it! :-) I'm siding with you here. From: Min-Zhao Lee 14/02/00 22:22:38 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 38413 Well, we could go to the limits of metaphysics and dispute Descartes: "I think, therefore I am." Remember, we have no concept of the universe outside our own senses. We can see nothing in reality except through our own eyes, hear nought but through our own ears, feel not except by our own senses. All of this exists merely in our mind. So, one could go as far as to argue that everything is a figment of the imagination, the imagination of a lone mind, nothing else. But that would be saying, "I am God". God strikes me (only in a manner of speaking, not through thunderbolts or such) as something similar to the imaginary friends that children create. We've grown out of making imaginary friends. Let's all grow up some more. From: Robert 14/02/00 22:32:41 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 38428 "There is a God. That's why things are why they are." be perfect for Occam's razor? Hmmm ... lets see ... Occam's razor .. I'll use yet another Sagan quote: "This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler." I would choose a scientific theory over a "Oh that's too hard lets say God did it" theory any day. :-) Even hypothesising the existence of some 'superior being' that consists of neither energy nor matter yet mysteriously altering probabilities by un-calculatable amounts and expanding space and time from nothing is a big call. Here is an example of a "why are thing the way they are question" Q: Why is the sky blue? Fundamentalist Christian: God separated the water into two parts, one of these is the sky, hence the blue colour. Science: Rayligh scattering of light. Hmm.. you pick the simpler one. From: Kothos 14/02/00 22:47:54 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 38441 First, wouldn't simply saying "There is a God. That's why things are why they are." be perfect for Occam's razor? If not, why not? (I lay no claims to the existence of god, I am merely wondering why this is not acceptable.) I wonder too, Min-Zhao. I think where Chris and James are coming from is that Occam's Razor is a scientific tool for leading one toward a proof, and not for proving. It does contain the word 'likely' after all (ie "Faced with two propositions which are equally valid, the simpler one is more likely to be true"). Are we assuming that, as given as an example, the sun will rise tomorrow? I thought more along the lines of assumption that there was nothing to affect the rotation of the earth or its orbit, hence there is nothing preventing the sun from rising tomorrow. I agree. Although we are assuming that since we know of nothing to prevent it, then there is nothing to prevent it, that's the assumption. 1 + 1 <> 2; 1 + 1 != 2... looks like BASIC; C. Would I be correct in assuming you are a programmer? Yup, the first is BASIC and Pascal, the latter is C, all of which I studied. I'm only incidentally a programmer though, by way of studying engineering. (I've never made a living out of programming :-) That's it Kothos! Pick a definition of God and attack it! :-) I'm siding with you here. Thanks Robert. I just hope something interesting comes of this (-: From: bart 14/02/00 22:56:26 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 38450 "Yet I don't see anybody claiming that whether 1+1=2 or 1+1<>2 (or 1+1 != 2) cannot be known one way or the other." okay then,example 1; 1+ 1 = 0 where one of them is a positron and the other is an electron. Example 2; 1a + 1a = 2a, not true where a is the relative speed of an object. From: Kothos 15/02/00 20:00:52 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 38717 Bart, I'm just illustrating with an example using ordinary numbers, not algebra. I could use your example of (one positron) + (one electron) = zero and still say, "Yet I don't see anyone claiming it cannot be known one way or the other." From: Chris (Avatar) 16/02/00 13:47:18 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39023 No omniscient/omnipotent infallible being may also possess motivations and desires, or even human emotions and desires (which we can be reasonably certain are a product of our own unique evolution). It's my view this is a logical contradiction (like 1=2). And that's where the problem is with your argument, Kothos. Unfortunately arguing from the scientific perspective tends to presume the rules of logic as axiomatic - the presumption definitely does not apply to faith. God is not necessarily constrained by logic. I know it's frustrating from such a perspective! :o) Consider, for example, the question: why would a God not only unconstrained by logic, but also flawed in logic at root, create a universe which is constrained by logic (to the extent that we can understand and describe it)? The answer? "Because it's God. God may or may not have a reason." Once again, faith is not science. God is not falsifiable. Hope this helps! Chris From: Robert 16/02/00 13:56:19 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39028 Then what value has faith? Voltaire said something along the lines of, "By using faith, you are saying that something is not worthy of its own merits" From: James Richmond (Avatar) 16/02/00 14:38:34 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39040 Kothos: Basically that the concept of God is a non-falsifiable proposition, that it can neither be proved nor disproved. I still disagree, and want to know what you have to say about this. There is no experiment you can do, or observation that you can make which will prove, or even establish on a balance of probabilities to the satisfaction of the general population that God does or does not exist. If you think you know of such an experiment or observation, lots of people will be very happy to settle the issue once and for all. But your experiment must be based on current knowledge, not on something we may hypothetically know in the future. (God might appear tomorrow in a puff of smoke and declare Himself unequivocally). I've maintained that the God as Catholics believe in Him, is self-contraditory. Everything Catholics feel they know about Him paints Him merely as a superhuman man, with human motivations and desires. Neverthless they also hold that he is omniscient and omnipotent. This is where I feel there is a contradiction. No omniscient/omnipotent infallible being may also possess motivations and desires, or even human emotions and desires (which we can be reasonably certain are a product of our own unique evolution). It's my view this is a logical contradiction (like 1=2). How do you know what every Catholic believes? In any event, saying that God is conceptualised only as a superhuman man in any well-developed religion is oversimplifying. Similarly, how do you know that an omniscient, omnipotent being cannot possess human or any other emotions or desires? You're placing restrictions on a supposedly omnipotent entity. The non-falsifiability argument seems to be based on the fact that God, being omniscient and omnipotent, possesses all knowledge. We don't possess all knowledge, and so theoretically there may be something we don't know about, that may show up and explain these seeming contradictions. The non-falsifiability has nothing to do with God's knowledge, only ours. Not only are there things that we don't know (which would be sufficient in itself), but there may be things we can't know. Here is where I have come up with a new thought (for me anyway). Surely the argument in the above paragraph rests on the fact that the only provable proposition is Descarte's I think, therefore, I am (the proof is that it is self-evident). All other propositions can not, and can never be, proven or disproven. (Aside: Descartes goes on to 'prove' the existence of God using this statement a little further on in his text, but fails miserably.) As such, even if the concept of God seems self-contradictory, we can never know if new information will come to light which will suddenly make the contradictions all go away. This seems like a weak argument to me because it applies to all propositions except for Descartes big primary one. For example, taking the mathematical statement 1+1=2, who's to say that just around the corner someone won't turn up new evidence indicating it is false? It certainly appears true, even by definition, but without possessing all knowledge, we can never be absolutely sure. Scientific knowledge is always provisional. Perhaps 1+1=2 is a bad example, since this is not a basic statement but is based on a set of axioms which are assumed to be true a priori. But if we consider a statement such as "the sun will rise tomorrow", we accept this as true only because in our experience it has never yet failed to be true. At some stage in the future (perhaps tomorrow) this statement might cease to be true. In that case we will find some new way of explaining the observations. The case of God is a bit different to that of the sun. We assume that the sun will rise tomorrow because it always has before. By similar reasoning we can say that God will exist tomorrow because he always has before. Or we could say God won't exist tomorrow because he never has before. The problem is that in the case of God, we have no definite prior scientific data one way or the other which would help us draw scientific conclusions of this sort. JR From: James Richmond (Avatar) 16/02/00 14:56:21 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39052 Min-Zhao Lee: ...First, wouldn't simply saying "There is a God. That's why things are why they are." be perfect for Occam's razor? If not, why not? It depends on whether you regard God as a simple explanation or not. Most scientists would argue that God is a very complex explanation for a phenomenon, since after saying "God did it." you need to explain exactly what is meant by "God". Defining God in a precise way is practically impossible, as compared to defining something like "charge". Are we assuming that, as given as an example, the sun will rise tomorrow? I thought more along the lines of assumption that there was nothing to affect the rotation of the earth or its orbit, hence there is nothing preventing the sun from rising tomorrow. Similarly, there is nothing preventing God from continuing to exist, given that he exists already (see above). ... Remember, we have no concept of the universe outside our own senses. ... So, one could go as far as to argue that everything is a figment of the imagination, the imagination of a lone mind, nothing else. Certainly. This has been argued by more than one philosopher. God strikes me (only in a manner of speaking, not through thunderbolts or such) as something similar to the imaginary friends that children create. We've grown out of making imaginary friends. Let's all grow up some more. You may feel that God is a mere human construct similar to an imaginary friend, but you can't prove that that this is the case, or even succeed in convincing others that your point of view must be correct. By assuming that God does not exist, you may be denying yourself a variety of richly rewarding spiritual experiences. I prefer to keep an open mind about God's existence and not adopt such tunnel vision about what I accept as the boundaries of what is real. JR From: Robert 16/02/00 15:48:34 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39059 My post got lost, this is the second time I am writing this :-( How do you know what every Catholic believes? In any event, saying that God is conceptualised only as a superhuman man in any well-developed religion is oversimplifying. Similarly, how do you know that an omniscient, omnipotent being cannot possess human or any other emotions or desires? You're placing restrictions on a supposedly omnipotent entity. What Kothos did was choose a specific definition of God - just one element in the set of Gods if you like. While I agree that we may not be able to disprove the concept of God entirely, philosophically speaking it could be possilble with total knowledge (which is only possible at the end of the Universe if there is one). Humans might not be able to disprove all of the definitions of God, but at least we can logically disprove the more specific ones. If you arrange the elements in decreasing order of specification and increasing order of abstractness from left to right, then you will find that as we gain knowledge we can disprove more and more Gods from left to right: X=disproven More specific definitions* More abstract definitions** ^extent of human disproof? *eg. A bloke with a white beard that we can't see and made the Earth less than 6000 years ago. Disproof:Radiometric dating. **eg. Inherent property of the Universe that is incomprehensilble or untestable By assuming that God does not exist, you may be denying yourself a variety of richly rewarding spiritual experiences I will again use a quote from Mr. Sagan referring to invisible dragons - of which an undefined God is one: (see 'evolution' thread) "Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof, are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder." However his conclusion was: "Once again, the only sensible approach is to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion." Oh, and Chris, it looks like you can't use the "But God could be illogical" argument any more because one of the conditions for the Richmond test is: ....to the satisfaction of the general population ... And, thankfully, most of the population is logical most of the time. From: Robert 16/02/00 15:51:48 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39061 X=disproven More specific definitions* More abstract definitions** ^extent of human disproof? Should read: More specific definitions* [xxxxxxxxxxxx---------------------------------------]More abstract definitions** ^extent of human disproof? From: Robert 16/02/00 15:52:27 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39062 X=disproven More specific definitions* More abstract definitions** ^extent of human disproof? Should read: X=disproven More specific definitions* [xxxxxxxxxxxx---------------------------------------]More abstract definitions** ^extent of human disproof? From: Robert 16/02/00 15:53:31 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39063 Sorry, hopefully you'll work it out. From: spud(adonai) 16/02/00 15:59:25 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39064 You may feel that God is a mere human construct similar to an imaginary friend, but you can't prove that that this is the case, or even succeed in convincing others that your point of view must be correct. By assuming that God does not exist, you may be denying yourself a variety of richly rewarding spiritual experiences. I prefer to keep an open mind about God's existence and not adopt such tunnel vision about what I accept as the boundaries of what is real. JR, care to elabvorate, such spiritual experiances. Personally i find "spiritual experiances" to be taken witha grain of salt. I mean you can others can say, "oh i can't talk about its personal" etc.. These personal experiances are only mans thoughts, interpretations of things happening to or around them. From: Chris (Avatar) 16/02/00 16:33:51 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39073 Oh, and Chris, it looks like you can't use the "But God could be illogical" argument any more because one of the conditions for the Richmond test is: ....to the satisfaction of the general population ... And, thankfully, most of the population is logical most of the time. Arrrrgh! You mean that all this time JR was possessed of sufficient authority to be able to parameterise God in such a way as to make Him/Her falsifiable, and he didn't tell me??? It's all so simple all of a sudden!! :o) Robert, I'm sorry to come across in such a way but I need to make a point here. Knowledge of God is not scientific. It's not empirical. This means God can't be parametrised. This means that the absolute best you can ever do in this argument is falsify someone's understanding of God (in this case JR's). If there is no way you can say for certain that God has the (falsifiable) property X, then you cannot falsify X (and hence God). Furthermore if you rely on logic in falsifying X then X is only logically inconsistent. But since we cannot ascribe logical consistency to God, we can't falsify X with logic anyhow. Can't be done. Try catching your shadow or emptying the Pacific ocean into a sandhole using a thimble instead (for st augustine fans). For a more thorough reading on what we've gone over in this topic, I can suggest the thread which Kothos refers to at the top of this thread, or one of several others in the faq. Cheers Chris From: Robert 16/02/00 20:28:02 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39123 Fair enough Chris. But then where does the knowledge of God lie (if it exists) - in faith, I assume? From: Kothos 16/02/00 21:05:26 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39139 I've rearranged some of this, to show a progression of ideas. My God it's long though. Thanks to everyone who replied, I really appreciate this. James said, How do you know what every Catholic believes? I was one for a long time. Catholics do not have much scope to fancy a God of their own. If I were to rock up to my parish and tell the preist my views, I would no longer be regarded as Catholic. Neither would any Catholic who's views significantly deviated from that of the Pope or the Church. However one may regard oneself, Catholicism is narrowly defined by the international body. The fact that so-called Catholics exist who believe in all sorts of weird stuff like abortion is only because there are flaws in any human registry system. It's like a Christian not believing in Jesus - can't happen, however much some may shout 'I am a Christian' from the rooftops. Besides, you may regard me as using the theological definition of God held by the Pope if you want to narrow it down completely. In any event, saying that God is conceptualised only as a superhuman man in any well-developed religion is oversimplifying. Similarly, how do you know that an omniscient, omnipotent being cannot possess human or any other emotions or desires? You're placing restrictions on a supposedly omnipotent entity. Any entities omnipotence is a restriction in itself. By definition, the possession of omnipotence and omniscience negates motivation, because there is nothing left to desire. You know everything (including the outcome of all your actions), you can do everything, hey presto, you sit on your hands and plot ways to commit suicide. (Okay the last bit about suicide doesn't necessarily follow). If you are God, you are everything, you cannot wish for something outside of yourself. I think and think and think, and I can't see a logical flaw in this. If you are God, you would never, not ever, do anything. There is no experiment you can do, or observation that you can make which will prove, or even establish on a balance of probabilities to the satisfaction of the general population that God does or does not exist. Well, I think the above is logically consistent, and essentially proves the non-existence of an actively interfering God (the Catholic God is always active and interfering). The non-falsifiability has nothing to do with God's knowledge, only ours. Well, it does in a way. If God does not transcend logic then I maintain that I have disproved His existence. If He does transcend logic, then the above statement is unneccesary and it has no effect on my last argument. Chris said, Unfortunately arguing from the scientific perspective tends to presume the rules of logic as axiomatic - the presumption definitely does not apply to faith. God is not necessarily constrained by logic. Okay, by this argument, I am blinded by logic. While my disability stops me from seeing how that can be the case, I can imagine that there may be a mode of existence or thought seperate from, or a superset of, logic. Hmm. I'll grant that God may transcend logic, and in this way is not falsifiable (by logic alone, or by any other tool, since he may transcend that as well). Nevertheless, it does not tell me why His existence is worthy of consideration. I began on this in the tail end of my post. James said, Perhaps 1+1=2 is a bad example, Yes I very much agree. The problem is that in the case of God, we have no definite prior scientific data one way or the other Here's my major problem. I disagree slightly with that statement. We don't even have indefinite prior scientific data, we don't have any prior scientific data, one way or the other about God. Why then, should His existence be a consideration, worthy of the statement, 'God may exist, because this cannot be proven one way or the other.' God is one member of the infinite set of unfalsifiable beings. Why should God take precedence over the others, like the dragon under my bed? I can hypothesise an endless number of God-like and un-God-like unfalsifiable concepts... so what? It's useless to do so, it tells us nothing about anything. If we regress to the statement 'I think, therefore, I am' we can say that absolutely nothing else is falsifiable, God included. If we progress to assuming the truth of the scientific deductions we can make about our sensory data, the set of unfalsifiable concpets remains infinite, and still includes God (who is but one member). A concise illustration of this point is Roberts quote from Sagan, that such considerations are "verdically useless." (Thanks for that Robert.) By assuming that God does not exist, you may be denying yourself a variety of richly rewarding spiritual experiences. I prefer to keep an open mind about God's existence and not adopt such tunnel vision about what From: Kate (TUO) 16/02/00 21:15:35 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39145 . . . If I were to rock up to my parish and tell the preist my views, I would no longer be regarded as Catholic. Neither would any Catholic who's views significantly deviated from that of the Pope or the Church. However one may regard oneself, Catholicism is narrowly defined by the international body. I know I'm butting in here, but, have you chatted to many Jesuits lately? They're the only Catholic clergy really worth having a philosophical conversation with (so would you be after the equivalent of six PhDs worth of training probably on top of your existing tertiary qualifications) . They're pretty broad individuals, much more so than the average parish priest. (just my 2c worth, please don't bite my head off) From: Kothos 16/02/00 21:32:44 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39156 to continue... By assuming that God does not exist, you may be denying yourself a variety of richly rewarding spiritual experiences. I prefer to keep an open mind about God's existence and not adopt such tunnel vision about what I accept as the boundaries of what is real. Um, I have quite a lot of richly rewarding spiritual experiences that have nothing to do with God, and everything to do with finding truth, doing good and making someone happy - many more so than when I was a child and believed in God. (A religious person may say that God is in me even though I don't believe in Him, but that's beside the point.) I think it's unfair to label the brand of atheism (which is really agnosticism verging on atheism) put forward in this thread with 'tunnel vision'. Should we also spend all day wondering about ghostly dragons and pixies and fairies and martians? Do you keep an open mind about the existence of all the other possible non-falsifiable concepts, of which there are an infinite number? From: Kothos 16/02/00 21:40:28 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39160 Kate, a head like yours must be way too pretty to bite off (I mean 'pretty' in the broadest sense of 'attractive' - not trying to be sexist or anything). Besides, I do my best to keep biting to a minimum, it doesn't serve too many noble purposes. No I haven't talked to any Jesuits, although by the sounds of it it would probably be worth doing so. I've purposely kept my definition of God and Catholicism to that which I was taught by the representatives of the church, because I didn't want to get into interpretive debates about what God is exactly. Some definitions of God are so abstract as to scarcely even deserve the label 'definition'. From: Kothos 16/02/00 22:04:45 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39179 Kate, can I just ask, how come you're worried about getting your head bitten off in the first place? Quite apart from the fact the no one should have to justify the worth of their opinion, you've more than proved your value on this forum (IMHO). From: Chris (Avatar) 17/02/00 9:53:59 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39305 I'll grant that God may transcend logic, and in this way is not falsifiable (by logic alone, or by any other tool, since he may transcend that as well). Nevertheless, it does not tell me why His existence is worthy of consideration. Once again, this remark is constrained by the perspective of logic. The inability to prove or explain something doesn't negate its worth. You won't find a reason for belief in God in logic*, or the scientific method, or Occam's razor, or any such thing. Faith is, by definition, belief in the absence of proof (or, some would say, reason). For people with faith, that is reason enough. And therein lies the worth in considering God. Those people for whom God provides a sense of comfort, or peace, or whatever it might be, have reason enough. If God means nothing to you, then you are right: there is no reason for you to consider God. But there is no way for you to destroy God with science either. Cheers Chris * I have seen the following logical argument in favour of the existence of God: If you believe in God, and get it wrong - no loss when you die. But if you don't believe in God and you get that wrong, then you're in for all sorts of "hell" when you die. On a balance of probabilities... which horse is the safer bet?? ;o) From: Kothos 17/02/00 10:54:36 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39330 Chris said, Once again, this remark is constrained by the perspective of logic. The inability to prove or explain something doesn't negate its worth. You won't find a reason for belief in God in logic*, or the scientific method, or Occam's razor, or any such thing. Faith is, by definition, belief in the absence of proof (or, some would say, reason). For people with faith, that is reason enough. And therein lies the worth in considering God. Those people for whom God provides a sense of comfort, or peace, or whatever it might be, have reason enough. By this reasoning the concept of Santa Claus is also worthy of consideration. I have heard the quote "I would rather be happy than right any day" and I disagree with it completely. My disagreement is personal and subjective, and it seems the argument has reached a point where it depends on your personal views about what goals life should be about. I don't think being happy at the expense of reason is a worthy pursuit (you may as well be a heroin addict) - if someone else thinks what happiness we can find is better than what truth we can find, then so be it, I have nothing to say to that. (I do however, think finding truth, even if it be at the expense of happiness, is a worthy pursuit). Another member of the set of unfalsifiable concepts is Nick's aether, mentioned in another thread. After some replies to his post, Nick eventually postulated an aether which by definition was undetectable in it's convoluted existence. But it seemed to make him happy to believe in it, so I suppose it was okay. * I have seen the following logical argument in favour of the existence of God: If you believe in God, and get it wrong - no loss when you die. But if you don't believe in God and you get that wrong, then you're in for all sorts of "hell" when you die. On a balance of probabilities... which horse is the safer bet?? ;o) In a related comment, James said, I prefer to keep an open mind about God's existence In one of his essays about what beliefs one should adopt, Montaigne said that as long as there was no evidence one way or the other, he would believe any old wives tale. If he had a cold, and someone told him to sleep with a shaker of salt, and he could not tell whether this would hurt nor help with his cold, and it made no difference to him otherwise - he would do it. 'Why not?' he says, '[he] doesn't know everything, and it can't hurt, and it may help'. Again I have to disagree. The set of unfalsifiable arguments is infinite, and some of them are contradictory and mutually exclusive (In the long run, maybe it is the Devil who will help me more than God - but God wouldn't like that - so which one to turn to? Maybe the shaker of salt will make the cold worse, without evidence, who's to say?). So Montaigne was wrong, without knowing, it might hurt. I am not going to spend all day sifting through this infinite set trying to figure out what to believe in. Anyway, thanks for your input. I've achieved what I wanted to, namely to narrow down the scope of my thoughts, to understand yours and to find specifically the points at which we differed. I would put a smiley face at the end of my post, but I have a head cold atm which is almost inclining me to believe my brain really is made of phlegm. (-: (All right I couldn't help it.) From: Martin B 17/02/00 13:06:25 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39429 Ah Pascal's Wager... (quote below) I once read the great prophet Sagan (may peace be with him) describe a counter-argument to this... If God exists, and I choose to believe in He/She/It on the basis of such obviously selfish reasoning, then God will surely see through me and condemn me to an eternity of punishment. However if I stick with my convictions and live my life as I believe, then God will surely understand why I don't believe in Him/Her/It (since God knows everything). Thus I am better off ignoring the shallow temptations of Pascal's wager... From the Internet... Pensees Paragraph 233 Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all." Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. From: Kothos 17/02/00 13:45:39 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39451 but you must wager. It is not optional This is tenuous, since agnosticism has been defined for a long time. But in any case, Sagan is correct. Although it's a useful debating tool, I have hesitated to include an Even if... argument because I'm not sure of the validity of presupposing the truth of part of the very argument you are trying to refute. Nevertheless, even if God exists, and I don't believe in Him, I'm sure He'll more than understand my position, and be proud of me for making such a thoughtful choice. So that is called Pascal's Wager is it? I never knew. And Jesus, Sagan is becoming my new hero, I've never known much about him. From: Martin B 17/02/00 13:55:13 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39453 I should point out that I only think that counter-argument came from one of Sagan's books, I can't remember the reference, and in any case I don't think he claimed that he thought of it. It was devised by someone else and he was retelling it. From: Kothos 17/02/00 13:59:34 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39454 Well, I still agree with it regardless, I thought of it myself and I'm sure lots of people have. If I had a five-year-old child, and s/he caught me out in what she thought was a mistake, would I be proud, or angry? Proud of course. From: Robert 17/02/00 16:00:08 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39491 First off I will start off with a quote from The Demon-Haunted World written by Sagan (who else) :-) (start quote) Do we care what's true? Does it matter? "...where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise." Wrote the poet Thomas Gray. But is it? Edmund Way Teale in his 1950 book Circle of the Seasons understood the dilemma better: "It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money, as long as you have got it." (end quote) Chris, This means that the absolute best you can ever do in this argument is falsify someone's understanding of God That's actually what I was trying to do! Except what I was naively suggesting is that you could go through and falsify specific and groups of understandings. It is quite trivial I know, given the infinite range of parameters possible for something which, by definition, can't be parametised; but I felt if that is all we are capable of, then it is worth a try, isn't it? Would this be a suitable definition of God? That which cannot be defined* nor be shown to be true or false * I realise the absurdity here. Anyway, as long as there are no objections, there are the following implication: If something can be either: a)defined 'properly' (ie. not like my definition above) b)proven c)disproven d)logical? Then, it follows that it is not God nor Godlike (whichever you are most comfortable with). And, Chris - I you have run out of patience I will not be surprised so you can bite my head off. :-) From: Chris (Avatar) 17/02/00 16:16:00 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39497 If something can be either: a)defined 'properly' (ie. not like my definition above) b)proven c)disproven d)logical? Then, it follows that it is not God nor Godlike (whichever you are most comfortable with). No, that doesn't follow. It's not that God isn't logical, it's that God isn't necessarily logical. For instance if God creates something logical then God is capable of logic. But God isn't restrained by logic, hence not falsifiable. Saying that God is strictly not logical is a parameter (ie, you could find some way in which God is logical and thus falsify a God concept based on this parameter). Nice try... no dice! :o) Chris From: James Richmond (Avatar) 17/02/00 18:00:55 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39522 Kothos - Firstly, thanks for a very interesting discussion. I'll try to address a few of the things you've said. ...If you are God, you are everything, you cannot wish for something outside of yourself. I think and think and think, and I can't see a logical flaw in this. If you are God, you would never, not ever, do anything. Being omniscient and omnipotent doesn't mean that you are everything. If you're omnipotent you can easily create a universe or two outside yourself. Being omniscient means that you can see everything and know everything, but that doesn't mean you have to choose to see everything. If, in addition, you're not bound by logic (and why should you be - you're omnipotent after all), you can make a rock you can't lift -- or a universe where you don't know the course of events in advance. I'll grant that God may transcend logic, and in this way is not falsifiable (by logic alone, or by any other tool, since he may transcend that as well). Nevertheless, it does not tell me why His existence is worthy of consideration.... Here's my major problem. ... [W]e don't have any prior scientific data, one way or the other about God. Why then, should His existence be a consideration, worthy of the statement, 'God may exist, because this cannot be proven one way or the other.' If scientific data is all you are willing to consider in the ambit of things which are True, then you will probably conclude that God is not worthy of your consideration. As Chris has said, this is where faith comes into the picture. A belief in God cannot be based on scientific data, since this sort of evidence doesn't exist. If you want evidence of God, you must look elsewhere. Different people see evidence of God in many different things - in nature, in other people, in good fortune, in "gut feelings" and so on. None of this would stand up in a court of law (or science), but it can be very important to a person who believes. Of course, many other people get along quite well with no belief in God, too. Whether it is ultimately better to believe or disbelieve is debatable, but the debate cannot be based on logical considerations alone. God is one member of the infinite set of unfalsifiable beings. Why should God take precedence over the others, like the dragon under my bed? This is a tough one. From a scientific point of view, God is not much different from the dragon under your bed. But consider: what evidence could we count as objective evidence in favour of God or a dragon? Where the dragon is concerned, we can imagine things like footprints, scorch marks, discarded scales and so on. Of course, all these things can be faked and can have alternative explanations, so it is difficult to prove absolutely that your dragon is real. On the other hand, if enough evidence accumulated, most people would agree that your dragon exists, even without necessarily seeing it. The fact that most objective evidence of your dragon would be fairly unequivocal makes it less likely that people will believe in it while this evidence is lacking. The subjective evidence associated with your dragon, on the other hand, is reasonably easily explained away as a delusion limited to one person. God is a bit different. Much of the evidence which could prove God's existence is equivocal. This can always be explained away by adding layers between the evidence and the explanation (God), but this takes more effort than the simple dismissal of the equivocal evidence of the dragon. The lack of unequivocal evidence of God's existence is not such a great stumbling block for God as for the dragon, since we don't expect so much unequivocal evidence in the case of God. Um, I have quite a lot of richly rewarding spiritual experiences that have nothing to do with God, and everything to do with finding truth, doing good and making someone happy - many more so than when I was a child and believed in God. (A religious person may say that God is in me even though I don't believe in Him, but that's beside the point.) I think it's unfair to label the brand of atheism (which is really agnosticism verging on atheism) put forward in this thread with 'tunnel vision'. It is your interpretation that your spiritual experiences have nothing to do with God, and you are of course quite welcome to interpret things this way - perhaps you're right. My "tunnel vision" comment was not directed at you, but to the view that "God is a fairy tale. Let's all just grow up." Things are not so black and white. Having said that, I think that the point of view which considers that scientific knowledge is the only kind worth having is a somewhat limiting one. Should we also spend all day wondering about ghostly dragons and pixies and fairies and martians? Do you keep From: James Richmond (Avatar) 17/02/00 18:02:00 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39523 Should we also spend all day wondering about ghostly dragons and pixies and fairies and martians? Do you keep an open mind about the existence of all the other possible non-falsifiable concepts, of which there are an infinite number? We should devote as much time to wondering about dragons and pixies and Martians as the complexity of the concepts and the evidence (objective and subjective) warrant. Yes, I do keep an open mind about non-falsifiable concepts, though I assign lower priority to some of those concepts than others. When such concepts are put forward, I assess them against the things I already know and believe, and estimate the probability of their existence accordingly. JR From: Kothos 17/02/00 18:41:26 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39538 Firstly, thanks for a very interesting discussion. Thanks, it's made a fair amount of progress don't you think? Being omniscient means that you can see everything and know everything, but that doesn't mean you have to choose to see everything. If, in addition, you're not bound by logic (and why should you be - you're omnipotent after all), you can make a rock you can't lift -- or a universe where you don't know the course of events in advance. Yet another way to shoot down my logical 'proof' that God doesn't exist. Fair enough, I can't imagine why God would choose to limit Himself, but that doesn't mean it ain't so. Whether it is ultimately better to believe or disbelieve is debatable, but the debate cannot be based on logical considerations alone. Why? If people enjoy believing in God, I would view it merely as a manifestation of the placebo effect, that's logical. God is a bit different. Much of the evidence which could prove God's existence is equivocal. This can always be explained away by adding layers between the evidence and the explanation (God), but this takes more effort than the simple dismissal of the equivocal evidence of the dragon. The lack of unequivocal evidence of God's existence is not such a great stumbling block for God as for the dragon, since we don't expect so much unequivocal evidence in the case of God. I still don't see the point. There are other unfalsifiable concepts whose evidence for existence can be as equivocal as that of God's, and whose requirements for unequivocal evidence is similar. But that's okay, we've probably pushed the debate as far as it will go - I guess I just have no faith in 'faith' (-: I think that the point of view which considers that scientific knowledge is the only kind worth having is a somewhat limiting one. I agree. I think ultimately science can explain everything. But even if it does it will still be worth having non-scientific knowledge. I have asked friends of mine who happen to be very good musicians if their complete understanding of a piece they are hearing lessens the enjoyment, and they've said 'No'. We should devote as much time to wondering about dragons and pixies and Martians as the complexity of the concepts and the evidence (objective and subjective) warrant. Yes, I do keep an open mind about non-falsifiable concepts, though I assign lower priority to some of those concepts than others. When such concepts are put forward, I assess them against the things I already know and believe, and estimate the probability of their existence accordingly. That's the best we can do. If we come up with answers different from each other, well, the path to Heaven is crooked and rocky, and full of dead ends and blind corners. From: typo 17/02/00 18:45:39 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39540 not really following this thread but dragons aren't believed in because there are no dragon bones (unlike dinosaurs) and in stories about dragons they are slayed by knights. Martians aren't believed in because we have taken photos of the planet and we didn't see any green men. God however is able to exist in a form which we cannot describe or fully comprehens according to the definition of God (the body of all knowledge). Having a belief in God I think is acknowledging that we don't know everything or have all knowledge. From: Rapunzel 17/02/00 19:26:05 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39549 Nice balanced discussion, Messrs Avatars, but I take strong exception with one point: If you believe in God, and get it wrong - no loss when you die. But if you don't believe in God and you get that wrong, then you're in for all sorts of "hell" when you die. On a balance of probabilities... which horse is the safer bet?? ;o) Hhhmmm - that does not look like a logical argument to me! It makes one hell of an assumption on at least one point! (excuse the pun!!) ...and sounds like the kind of rubbish you can hear on street corners! :-) Rapunzel From: Robert 17/02/00 19:54:22 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39556 Chris, Hence my question mark - delete option (d). The rest is right, though? I accept that all of the understandings that are either part logical or non-logically restrained will never be falsified by logic. From: James Richmond (Avatar) 17/02/00 22:33:24 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39607 I'll eventually get up to date with this thread - bear with me. There's just so much here. Then there's the "evolution" thread to attend to... If you believe in God, and get it wrong - no loss when you die. But if you don't believe in God and you get that wrong, then you're in for all sorts of "hell" when you die. On a balance of probabilities... which horse is the safer bet?? According to this argument, there are 4 possibilities: 1. You believe in God and He exists - you clearly win here. 2. You believe in God and He doesn't exist - No harm done. You win. 3. You don't believe in God and He doesn't exist - clearly, you're ok here, too. 4. You don't believe in God and He exists - this is most likely a loss for you for all kinds of reasons, one of which may be going to hell (if that exists). It seems, therefore, that your best logical strategy is to believe in God, since it gives you the highest chance of a "win". The problem with the argument is option (2). Some would argue that believing in something which doesn't exist, when considered with the consequences of acting on that believe, is a waste of resources which could better be spent elsewhere. On a balance, therefore, the argument doesn't seem to hold much water. Which once again supports the view that a belief in God (or not) can't be based on logic. JR From: James Richmond (Avatar) 17/02/00 22:35:31 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39609 I'll eventually get up to date with this thread - bear with me. There's just so much here. Then there's the "evolution" thread to attend to... If you believe in God, and get it wrong - no loss when you die. But if you don't believe in God and you get that wrong, then you're in for all sorts of "hell" when you die. On a balance of probabilities... which horse is the safer bet?? According to this argument, there are 4 possibilities: 1. You believe in God and He exists - you clearly win here. 2. You believe in God and He doesn't exist - No harm done. You win. 3. You don't believe in God and He doesn't exist - clearly, you're ok here, too. 4. You don't believe in God and He exists - this is most likely a loss for you for all kinds of reasons, one of which may be going to hell (if that exists). It seems, therefore, that your best logical strategy is to believe in God, since it gives you the highest chance of a "win". The problem with the argument is option (2). Some would argue that believing in something which doesn't exist, when considered with the consequences of acting on that believe, is a waste of resources which could better be spent elsewhere. On a balance, therefore, the argument doesn't seem to hold much water. Which once again supports the view that a belief in God (or not) can't be based on logic. JR From: James Richmond (Avatar) 17/02/00 22:43:31 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39611 I'll eventually get up to date with this thread - bear with me. There's just so much here. Then there's the "evolution" thread to attend to... If you believe in God, and get it wrong - no loss when you die. But if you don't believe in God and you get that wrong, then you're in for all sorts of "hell" when you die. On a balance of probabilities... which horse is the safer bet?? According to this argument, there are 4 possibilities: 1. You believe in God and He exists - you clearly win here. 2. You believe in God and He doesn't exist - No harm done. You win. 3. You don't believe in God and He doesn't exist - clearly, you're ok here, too. 4. You don't believe in God and He exists - this is most likely a loss for you for all kinds of reasons, one of which may be going to hell (if that exists). It seems, therefore, that your best logical strategy is to believe in God, since it gives you the highest chance of a "win". The problem with the argument is option (2). Some would argue that believing in something which doesn't exist, when considered with the consequences of acting on that believe, is a waste of resources which could better be spent elsewhere. On a balance, therefore, the argument doesn't seem to hold much water. Which once again supports the view that a belief in God (or not) can't be based on logic. JR From: James Richmond (Avatar) 17/02/00 22:56:53 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39617 You won't find a reason for belief in God in logic, or the scientific method, or Occam's razor, or any such thing. Faith is, by definition, belief in the absence of proof (or, some would say, reason). For people with faith, that is reason enough. And therein lies the worth in considering God. Those people for whom God provides a sense of comfort, or peace, or whatever it might be, have reason enough. By this reasoning the concept of Santa Claus is also worthy of consideration. ... I don't think being happy at the expense of reason is a worthy pursuit (you may as well be a heroin addict) - if someone else thinks what happiness we can find is better than what truth we can find, then so be it, I have nothing to say to that. (I do however, think finding truth, even if it be at the expense of happiness, is a worthy pursuit). Yes, Santa Claus is worthy of consideration. But, for reasons I have given before, Santa Claus appears to me to be less likely to exist than God. Santa Claus, as commonly defined, would manifest himself with flying reindeer, presents delivered down chimneys and so on. The lack of matching observations tend to bias me towards the view that Santa exists only in the collective consciousness (which in itself is not a bad thing). The point has been made before that a world with only the cold hard "facts" would be a very unfriendly world. In the case of Santa, sacrificing a little "truth" for a while to gain a lot of happiness seems a worthwhile exercise. You are, of course, free to take a different view. JR From: James Richmond (Avatar) 18/02/00 10:00:32 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39659 I think that the point of view which considers that scientific knowledge is the only kind worth having is a somewhat limiting one. I agree. I think ultimately science can explain everything. But even if it does it will still be worth having non-scientific knowledge. I have asked friends of mine who happen to be very good musicians if their complete understanding of a piece they are hearing lessens the enjoyment, and they've said 'No'. I disagree with you that science can explain everything. If this were the case, I think your statement is contradictory, for if science did eventually explain everything, there could be no non-scientific knowledge. My view is that there will always be things that science can't explain. JR From: James Richmond (Avatar) 18/02/00 10:07:37 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39662 Much quoting of Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World has been taking place in this thread. It is interesting that Sagan himself doesn't rule out the possible existence of a God. Sections in blue below are quotes from the book. Of course, many religions, devoted to reverence, awe, ethics, ritual, community, family, charity, and political and economic justice, are in no way challenged, but rather uplifted, by the findings of science. There is no necessary conflict between science and religion. On one level, they share similar and consonant roles, and each needs the other. Open and vigorous debate, even the consecration of doubt, is a Christian tradition going back to John Milton's Areopagitica (1644). Some of the mainstream Christianity and Judaism embraces and even anticipated at least a portion of the humility, self-criticism, reasoned debate, and questioning of received wisdom the the best of science offers. Sagan makes the point that sophisticated religions are open to revision when new scientific discoveries challenge certain tenets of faith. In theological discussion with religious leaders, I often ask what their response would be if a central tenet of their faith were disproved by science. When I put this question to the Dalai Lama, he unhesitatingly replied as no conservative or fundamentalist religious leaders do: in such a case, he said, Tibetan Buddhism would have to change. Even, I asked, if it's a really central tenet, like (I searched for an example) reincarnation? Even then, he answered. However, he added with a twinkle, it's going to be hard to disprove reincarnation. Plainly, the Dalai Lama is right. Religious doctrine that is insulated from disproof has little reason to worry about the advance of science. The grand idea, common to many faiths, of a Creator of the Universe is one such doctrine - difficult alike to demonstrate or dismiss. [my emphasis in bold] JR From: Robert 18/02/00 10:30:39 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39672 And, a paragraph down: What would happen if science demonstrated an infinitely old Universe? Then theology would have to be seriously revamped. Indeed, this is the one conceivable finding of science that could disprove a Creator - because and infinitely old universe would never have been created. It would have always been here. From: Cam (Avatar) 18/02/00 10:59:38 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39680 G'day Chris, James, Kothos, Rapunzel, Robert, et al I dunno how you folks find time to dream up all this stuff, let alone write it and read each other's contributions! That's just a complicated way of saying I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if I ask an obvious question that you've already dealt with. Kothos, in relation to your comment about an infinitely old universe, how would that disprove the existence of a creator? Creators are magical beings who don't have to conform to any kind of logic or physical constraints. I can invent my own god right now who is consistent with a universe always being there. That's the trick with gods, they can bend reality to evade whatever logic you chuck at 'em! :-) Cam From: Robert 18/02/00 11:02:47 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39682 Typo: ....because an infinitely..... (Just for clarity, that was taken from the same page as JR's second quote) From: Kothos 18/02/00 11:06:22 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39685 I know what I said sounds contradictory. I should have put it better. I do think science will eventually explain everything, this is just my feeling, I have nothing with which to back it up. By 'non-scientific knowledge' I mean the intuitive kind that our limited brains can grasp as a whole. Like catching a ball without knowing anything about projectile motion. Eg, I fully expect neuroscience to come up with specific explanations as to why I love certain people, but that won't stop me from feeling that way, or limit my excitement, enjoyment, contentment, pleasure or satisfaction. Even if love is defined to the last decimal place I will (I hope) still be subject to the restrictions of my emotions. I might be able to work stuff out with the aid of maths, pencils, paper and computers, but my intuitive knowledge will remain finite. I think I'm being very vague again. Rapunzel mentioned that she doesn't think humans are just androids. I think I disagreed at the time. I think our brains, having evolved from the primitive to the intelligently conscious, have been left with the baggage of intuition and emotion. I suppose this is what I'm calling non-scientific knowledge, the evolved mechanism which calculates the trajectory of a ball for us in the same way that blood scabs over a wound. Even though this mechanism resides in our brains, the calculations cannot strictly be labelled as 'thought' because we haven't thoughtfully worked out the solution to the problem. Instead we have used an bunch of nerve cells brought together in a pattern by evolution which provide the solution for catching a ball. The same way that clotting factors in blood work without our knowing anything about chemistry. However much projectile motion I study I'll still know how to intuitively catch a ball. However much electrical circuit theory I study, I'll never intuitively grasp the functioning of electricity in the same way. Does anyone have a surefire way to alleviate cold symptoms quickly and completely?? From: Kothos 18/02/00 11:23:28 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39694 Jeez, and I thought if I typed quickly enough I wouldn't have to reference! My last post was in response to JR's post No. 39659. Cam, that was Robert, not me, quoting Sagan about the infinitely old universe. Still, if a creator as magical being could still create a universe which was infinitely old - you would have to postulate a creator who transcended, who was beyond, infinity. I don't see how that's possible, but Chris would say that that's just a failing in me. Nevertheless, I do still think religions would have to be seriously revamped, because I don't think they've ever imagined that their God would have to transcend infinity (being infinite himself...). They would have to stop saying that their God is ininitely old, and would have to start saying that He is more than infinitely old, in a way in which we mortals just can't hope to understand. (-: From: Chris (Avatar) 18/02/00 11:25:01 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39695 Cam I'd suggest that you've grasped the basic point very well indeed. :o) From: Cam (Avatar) 18/02/00 12:10:55 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39714 ”Cam I'd suggest that you've grasped the basic point very well indeed. :o)” Hi Chris I dunno about that, but I gave up arguing with god botherers a long time ago because there was no possibility of getting around the omnipotent, omni-located, all-seeing, all-knowing, all-time-spanning, all-whatever-you-like nature of god. Exceeding infinity? Hey no problem! The bugger is just too damn good! :-) Cam * waiting for the bolt of lightning to come through the ceiling* From: Kothos 18/02/00 14:23:11 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39744 The bugger is just too damn good! Cam, as slippery as a snake you might say? ;-) From: Cam (Avatar) 18/02/00 14:45:57 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39749 ”Cam, as slippery as a snake you might say? ;-)” Looks like I’ll be seeing you in hell, eh Kothos? ;-) From: Robert 18/02/00 16:01:35 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39757 Cam, A Creator has to create. But a God doesn't have to, necessarily. From: Cam (Avatar) 18/02/00 16:25:24 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39760 "A Creator has to create." Not necessarily. An entity referred to in religious circles as a "Creator" only has to take the credit for creating, regardless of whether he/she/it actually did any creating at all. In fact, one of the basic postulates of my own religion is that Almighty God "the Creator" is as phony as a $3 bill. From: Robert 18/02/00 16:30:44 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39762 Same problem. With no actual creation, there is no creation to even take credit for - hence no Creator. From: Kothos 18/02/00 18:30:39 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39774 Looks like I’ll be seeing you in hell, eh Kothos? ;-) I fervently hope so, misery loves company after all. "Every Sunday I go to mass, and every Sunday the priest finds a way to weasel a joke into the sermon. How come he gets to mix humour and religion, but when I try it I get slammed for blashemy?" - Kevin Smith, director of Dogma From: Kothos 18/02/00 18:32:40 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 39775 James, possibly I should post this in the evolution thread, but it's apt here. You said a couple of things in response to Rapunzel's philosophy posts which I agree with. Perhaps we can never have an intuitive understanding of forces which we do not directly perceive, but we can certainly comprehend such forces intellectually. Intuitive understanding is what I meat by 'non-scientific knowledge' by the way. Not very important but I figured I'd throw it in since I'm here. "Perhaps there are aspects of reality that cannot be sensed, technologically or otherwise", you say. If so, how could we hope to comprehend them? And even if they exist, how could they possibly affect us in any important way? Why worry about something which has no observable effects? Mmm, the word God is beating me in the head when I read that (-: I know you would argue that God is spiritually sensed... From: Rapunzel 19/02/00 21:31:51 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 40132 Just returning here to add to what James said about this idea: If you believe in God, and get it wrong - no loss when you die. But if you don't believe in God and you get that wrong, then you're in for all sorts of "hell" when you die. On a balance of probabilities... which horse is the safer bet?? ;o) Since nothing about deities can be scientifically verified, we also can't be certain that an anal-retentive, vengeful, cold deity does not exist. But to me that is irrelevant, because if there is that kind of deity, in my view it's not worth being friends with them. Not even if it spared you from an eternity of "hell." From: Kothos 20/02/00 0:40:39 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 40280 Rapunzel, surely you don't know how bad hell is? Surely it's possible that it could be so bad, you'd eat your own dwarfs to stay out of the place? (I don't mean you'd morally make that choice - but we are only human after all...) (PS Sorry if I've brought up a nasty idea, I wanted to think of the grossest thing I could...) From: Trev(TAO)̃ 20/02/00 0:42:46 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 40281 Rapunzel, surely you don't know how bad hell is she might not but im sure her students do :-P> :-)> Trev(TAO) From: Kothos 20/02/00 3:09:26 Subject: re: Chris and James post id: 40301 Gee Trev how did you survive 12 years of school without being murdered by a teacher?? (-: This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.