@Frank Apisa,
Quote:Quote: Quote:
Frank, the very idea of a god that can do anything is ridiculous...
Just because you say so???
Why is it ridiculous? Why is anything ridiculous, as a matter of fact?
No it's my
opinion. Just like everything else I've said here. It's true on a few occasions I've said something without backing it up but that's nearly always when it followed on (in my opinion) from what I'd previously said. Like where you quoted "there can be no evidence for god" out of context. It was a conclusion to my reasoning prior to the statement. Disagree, by all means or if the reasoning is faulty (and it may well be, I've never claimed to be infallible either, quite the opposite I think) say why but PLEASE don't tell me I'm stating everything as if it were fact. Don't act like I'm up on some pedestal shouting down. I have no interest in telling others what to think, I don't expect anyone to agree with me merely because I say so. The idea of converting people to my position repulses me. Every single part of your last post that implied as much was BS and a really low blow as far as I'm concerned. I apologise if I gave an impression that warranted all this stuff in your previous post but I really don't think I did. I ended my original post here by simply saying this is what I and I think a few other atheists are THINKING. Nothing has changed so I'm disappointed to be honest. Kind of soured this now.
For the record, my reasoning for this statement was (I think) the same as yours in saying the idea of a god that could not reveal itself to us is absurd. I assumed you meant this in the sense that god can do anything and as such he could reveal himself to us. Him not being able to reveal himself would be a contradiction in terms. I am saying that the idea a being can do anything is a contradiction in itself, like making a square circle or whatever. That to me is ridiculous.
Quote:Quote: Quote:
.. Unless a theist can explain how this stuff comes about and how we would verify it, then it's just more word salad that has no basis in reality. It's a cop out (as far as I'm concerned) to merely say well I don't know but that's god's job. Imagine if real answers worked like that?
What are you talking about???
And what do theistic guesses about what a GOD would be like...have to do with whether or not there are gods?
EVERY SINGLE GUESS ANY HUMAN HAS EVER MADE ABOUT THE NATURE OF GODS COULD BE WRONG...and gods could still exist.
Theist guesses are my only interest. Why? Because it is how beliefs are used for harm that interests me. Maybe this is why we've spoken across each other a bit. I have zero interest in the second question while god remains ambiguous enough to essentially be russell's teapot or the invisible pink unicorn. It is the theist guesses I deny. But this isn't a change of position. Here's what I said originally:
Quote:When there is no working definition or any description at all of god in terms of experimentally confirming it to actually decide one way or the other, I don’t see the problem with just dismissing the whole thing. It’s not the same as claiming there is no god because you couldn’t do that even if you wanted, there’s no reasonable description to connect the sentiment to. It’s just a dismissal of the whole thing, that’s really more my atheism.
Quote: Quote:Quote:
“I do not know the true nature of the Reality of existence...and there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base meaningful guesses on questions such as “are there gods involved or not.”
would be that we cannot know the true nature of existence.
If you say so.
I really do not know for sure what we can or cannot know about the true nature of the Reality of existence. What we see...what we sometimes deem to be an illusion...may be THE REALITY.
Again, it's called an opinion. There's nothing wrong with having one as far as I'm concerned. It's what we do with our opinions and how seriously we take them that matters. I should have stated just what I meant by "true nature of existence" before I responded but in fairness, you haven't defined that either. Anyway, I take it personally to be synonymous with the totality of reality. It seems to me we occupy finite, limited perspectives of the world and a true nature would transcend these limited views. But it also seems to me that our limited views are integral to what we call "knowledge" which is connected with our finite views of the relationships between things. A view which transcends this also transcends knowledge as we know it hence I said the true nature is unknowable. It's just a personal view based on my experiences and thoughts of the world and not particularly necessary to this discussion but I thought I'd throw it out there in response anyway. Just sharing a view but I get back this "if you say so" attitude. Weird.
Quote: Quote:Quote:
If this true nature is that which transcends our fragmentary perspectives then evidence is also meaningless since that merely provides us with relationships and links between things stuck at our level. If evidence could be attached to god then god would not be god surely? "god" would be finite. Saying well god can do anything is not saying anything at all and just further highlights the fallacy that arguing for god's existence in a verifiable, agreeable manner rests upon.
This statement is a logician's nightmare. I am not sure what you were trying to say here. You seem to be fond of making a statement and simply assuming it must be so...simply because you stated it.
I honestly couldn't disagree more but unless you can give me something to work with like WHY then how should I respond? All I was getting at was the same point you originally quoted in your last post about the idea of an omnipotent god being absurd. If god is beyond time and space (a typical requirement) then how can we attach evidence to "it". Omnipotence seems to me to be a contradiction. If I'm right about that and all a theist says is well he's god, he's above contradiction then he's actually killing the debate dead with regards to "it's" possible existence. God destroys logic but we're supposed to be able to use logic to find it? This is what I was getting at, hope it's clearer maybe.
Quote:Quote: Quote:
If I see the issue as being that there cannot ever be enough evidence, that the very idea of evidence for god is ludicrous, simply stating that there isn't enough to decide either way WOULD be ignoring my first statement. It'd be like if two people were having an argument about something and they asked me who was right but I knew/believed something that contradicted them both but I satisfied myself with merely saying I don't know who's right.
You are doing it again.
Quote:Quote:
The first point about evidence for god being mad in itself SUPERCEDES any points about there not CURRENTLY being enough evidence to make a decision.
That simply is not so...just because you say it is.
PLEASE, notice the word "IF". I was trying to explain my position to you, I was not and am not telling you how it is. I said if because I was trying to show you why, if I took position A, that position B followed. As for disagreeing with the reasoning, I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point. All I'd be doing is re-iterating, I honestly think it follows but you obviously disagree. If my thinking is wrong I'd like to know so it'd be interesting to hear what others have to say about this and whether what I've said here makes sense to anyone else. It wouldn't win any argument of course, but I have no interest in that anyway.
Quote:Quote:Quote:
If evidence for god is meaningless then it doesn't matter how much of it you've got.
Who are you to say the evidence is meaningless???
To theists, the evidence is very meaningful and persuasive...just as to atheists, the evidence that there are no gods is very meaningful and persuasive. I think they are all wet...but to suggest that you can use "the evidence is meaningless" as an axiom makes no sense.
Again, I said IF and that point followed on from what I'd previously said, namely that if you cannot agree on something being evidence then what kind of evidence is it? If the test results to prove someone was a father could not be agreed upon to point in one direction or the other, the test would not be evidence for anything.
Quote: Quote:Quote:
There can be no evidence for god.
Who are you to say there can be no evidence for (gods)??? Why do you do that so often?
Now HERE I agree that this sentence wasn't fleshed out much but I still say that everything I'd said prior to this gives a logical basis for the statement. See what I said previously about the notion of there being evidence for god or about god being omnipotent. It wasn't pulled straight out of my arse.
Quote: Quote:That's my position anyway, if you disagree that's fair enough but from my perspective it absolutely would be ignoring the central issue.
Well...apparently “the central issue” in your mind is that if you say something...it has to be accepted as fact. If you say “There can be no evidence for god”...that, in your mind, has to be accepted.
And if that is “the central issue”...anybody not “ignoring” it doesn't understand how debate works.
Just really, really poor this as far as I'm concerned and again you've soured my enjoyment of what had been an interesting and friendly conversation. I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think what I posted in this thread deserved this, "sez you" response. You just make it sound like I'm up on some podium shouting down at all the idiots. What a horrible implication and totally uncalled for. If you can honestly read back and still maintain this attitude then I might just call it quits here because what's the point??
As for your questions, NO to all of them. I hope you're not surprised. See what I said about what I'm arguing against and where my interests lie to see why this doesn't change my position. I'm sorry if I've sounded like a sour puss in this whole response but I really think the attitude in your last post was out of line and I'm not going to ignore it as if it was justified. Also, I don't have much time at the moment for big posts like this but I wanted to respond properly because I'd enjoyed the discussion.
