0
   

Proving a negative

 
 
ACB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 11:43 pm
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
Omni-benevolence is not a Biblical trait of God, neither old nor new testament.


Nor new testament? I think most Christians would be very surprised by that! Isn't the whole of Christianity based on the idea of God's unconditional love of mankind?

Well, how about conditional benevolence (i.e. conditional on man's repentance of sin)? I think that would have to be a minimum requirement.
Dichanthelium
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 08:34 am
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
I didn't write that article. Didn't you see the name and the link? This guy makes some very valid points, but I'm sure there will always be someone who doesn't like it - people who are sympathetic to the idea of God, or the Judeo-Christian tradition, and that's fine with me. I have no desire to debate about this article. I just posted it as food for thought, so eat.


Thank you. From this point on I will only seek to learn from you. So please help me understand a fundamental point. As I understand, you reject any form of idealism. How then am I to understand concepts such as "virtue" and "vice," for example?

To use specific examples, how should I understand the supposed virtues of "humility" and "courtesy" as opposed to what I understand to be vices such as "arrogance" and "bad manners"?

And I apologize if this question has already been adequately answered by either ancient or modern philosophers, but, as this is a forum, I will assume, until I am otherwise instructed, that it is appropriate to review and to continue to examine the conclusions of those earlier thinkers, and to seek the guidance of those who are better informed than I am.
0 Replies
 
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 09:46 am
@ACB,
ACB wrote:
Nor new testament? I think most Christians would be very surprised by that! Isn't the whole of Christianity based on the idea of God's unconditional love of mankind?

Well, how about conditional benevolence (i.e. conditional on man's repentance of sin)? I think that would have to be a minimum requirement.


Nope, I wouldn't even say that much. The reason I wouldn't attribute benevolence to God is because when we do this we try to hold God to our idea of what is or isn't benevolent for us. Thus if something bad happens to me suddenly God is no longer being benevolent. Well, too f'ing bad for me. God isn't constrained by my limited understanding of what is or isn't good for me.

And this is where the Christian idea of God fails; I will give Richard Carrier and hue-man that much. To put omni-benevolence alongside omnipotence means that we're adding a restriction to that which, by definition, has no restrictions. (I daresay hue-man's going to dislike me for admitting this now, but oh well.) Mr. Carrier's argument was flawed, but his intention was right enough.

But my original rebuttal was and remains that the article only addresses one (very flawed, yet unfortunately commonly held,) concept of God.
0 Replies
 
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 11:35 am
@Resha Caner,
Resha Caner wrote:
Zetetic, I was with you until the end of your post. I don't think I have any more or less fear than "people of science" or "non-believers" or whatever label you would use.


You have misunderstood me. I was speaking of those who have concrete positions which they hold that conflict with rational argumentation.
For instance, nuns who cover the tops of their tubs so god will not see them, despite god's omniscience, or those who think that if you behave this way, you will go to hell, or those who think that dinosaurs actually coexisted with humans because the earth is no older than ten thousand years. These are the 'religious' I was talking about, hence the ' '.
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 11:47 am
@Zetetic11235,
Mysticism is not in conflict with parsimony. That which is mystical is that which there is no alternative view of. For instance, that we cannot ask why and expect an answer, that we can only ask how. The problems of significance and insignificance and the human desire for purpose, a purpose which does not present itself to us.

Science cannot speak of purpose, it cannot tell us why something is, only how it works. As Wittgenstein said(this is not the best translation):
6.4312 Not only is there no guarantee of the temporal immortality of the
human soul, that is to say of its eternal survival after death; but, in any
case, this assumption completely fails to accomplish the purpose for which
it has always been intended. Or is some riddle solved by my surviving for
ever? Is not this eternal life itself as much of a riddle as our present
life? The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies outside
space and time. (It is certainly not the solution of any problems of
natural science that is required.)


6.432 How things are in the world is a matter of complete indifference for
what is higher. God does not reveal himself in the world.


6.4321 The facts all contribute only to setting the problem, not to its
solution.


6.44 It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it
exists.


6.45 To view the world sub specie aeterni is to view it as a whole--a
limited whole. Feeling the world as a limited whole--it is this that is
mystical.


6.5 When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be
put into words. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be framed at
all, it is also possible to answer it.


6.51 Scepticism is not irrefutable, but obviously nonsensical, when it
tries to raise doubts where no questions can be asked. For doubt can exist
only where a question exists, a question only where an answer exists, and
an answer only where something can be said.


6.52 We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been
answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there
are then no questions left, and this itself is the answer.


6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the
problem. (Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long
period of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them have then been
unable to say what constituted that sense?)


6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make
themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.


6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say
nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science--i.e.
something that has nothing to do with philosophy--and then, whenever
someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him
that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions.
Although it would not be satisfying to the other person--he would not have
the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy--this method would be the
only strictly correct one.


6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me
finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them,
on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he
has climbed up on it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he
will see the world aright.


7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 10:06 pm
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
Heh heh, to tell ya the truth, I had to look up the meaning of theist and deist to find out the difference. I'd have to say that, based on the definitions at Dictionary.com, that both are a belief in God, but a theist accepts the idea of revelation while a deist rejects it, I am a theist. I am not an agnostic theist. I know what I believe. Do I claim this belief to be knowledge? No. But anyone who does is just delusional.

Alright hue-man, you, and also Richard Carrier, addressed a traditional idea of God. It's not as if there is only one. Even given that, my original post in this thread still points out the problems of Mr. Carrier's argument as it relates even to that idea of God. And you have yet to directly address my original rebuttal.



I do get that. And, like you, I reject certain conceptions of God, just obviously for a different reason. As for my conception of God, I do believe in the omnipotent and omniscient aspects. I just simply don't believe in the omni-benevolent bit. How anyone could think that of God is beyond me. Such people need to wake up and realize the world that we're living in. Moreover, they need to analize the lives that they're living.

Now, if you have a logical argument against the existence of God that doesn't include omni-benelovence then I'd love to see it. Omni-benevolence is not a Biblical trait of God, neither old nor new testament.



Nice try. You seem to be on a mission to try to catch me in my own words, as if that would disqualify my whole argument. You're above such desperate measures I believe. As for the good arguments, well, hate to break it to you, but the Anselm thread's argument for God was just as good as this thread's argument against. You may not agree with me on that, but your opinion of how good each argument of the matter is doesn't matter, because neither argument holds water. And neither argument is logical. But hey, nice try; in both cases the presented arguments are about as good as it gets.



There is no evidence and you make this statement knowing that full well. So, no, you are not willing to change your position.



Uumm... I'm a theist who isn't a fan of religion. What more can I say? Believing in God and believing what religions say about God is two different things. I can think for myself and am glad to do so.



I hope to heck that you're right. But I simply don't see the social trends that you do. The trends that I see are remarkably different. It seems like everytime we take one step forward into the light of bringing the public out of the dark age's mentality of traditional biases, we end up taking two steps back. And if you're going to consider the industrialized world, America leads the field. Well, religion is still hugely prominent in America today. Contrary to what the religious say, their numbers are still strong. According to what was posted in another thread on this forum recently, upwards of 60% of Americans claim at least some religious beliefs. That is not a society that is ready to lead the way to a fideism free future. And, let's face it, wherever we end up collectively, it is likely going to be America that is going to lead the way for the rest of the world.


"Heh heh, to tell ya the truth, I had to look up the meaning of theist and deist to find out the difference. I'd have to say that, based on the definitions at Dictionary.com, that both are a belief in God, but a theist accepts the idea of revelation while a deist rejects it, I am a theist. I am not an agnostic theist. I know what I believe. Do I claim this belief to be knowledge? No. But anyone who does is just delusional."

So you believe that a God has revealed himself to man? Do you have a name for your God? You say that you are not an agnostic theist, yet you've made agnostic statements. I have the feeling that you don't really know what your position is. Most people believe that agnosticism is a statement of belief or disbelief, but since there really is no in between, agnosticism is more of a statement of knowledge, or in this case the lack thereof. That is what I think agnostics misunderstand. They should just replace the term agnosticism with positivist empiricism, because that's really what they're saying, minus the fact that they're ignoring the the principle of parsimony.

Being an agnostic theist does not mean that you don't believe in God - it means that you don't claim to have knowledge or evidence of God's existence, and that it's not a verifiable statement. Since I recognize the verifiability principle, an unverifiable statement is meaningless to me.

If it's delusional to state that you have evidence for God's existence, isn't it also delusional to believe in God's existence? What reasons do you have for believing in God, other than fideist faith?

"I do get that. And, like you, I reject certain conceptions of God, just obviously for a different reason. As for my conception of God, I do believe in the omnipotent and omniscient aspects. I just simply don't believe in the omni-benevolent bit. How anyone could think that of God is beyond me. Such people need to wake up and realize the world that we're living in. Moreover, they need to analize the lives that they're living."

I reject any conception of God that I've heard thus far, because I have not heard one that recognized the sensible principles of parsimony and verifiability. I've also never heard a logical argument for the existence of God.

As for your conception of God, I'm still not sure that you're a theist. You certainly don't sound like one. You sound like you haven't gone through this well enough, because I really don't feel the theism thing coming from you. I feel deism coming from you. That is unless you believe that God speaks to people through burning bushes.

Now earlier you said that people make assumptions about God, and here you go with your very own conception. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? You're assuming that this God is omnipotent and omniscient; but let's go with those attributes, shall we? If this God is all powerful and unlimited (omnipotent), that means that he can end any and all suffering as soon as he wishes. If this God is omniscient then that means he created this universe and all of the suffering therein (including evil), and that he knew what all of his creations would lead to, and that means he created them with that purpose in mind. This is why you make the clever move of removing the attribute of benevolence, because if this God did exist, and I hold that he doesn't physically exist, then he would have to be a f'd up guy. Either this God is malevolent for a self-righteous reason, or he just doesn't give an f about us. The parsimonious answer to this problem is that God doesn't exist, and that God is just an idea, and nothing more.

"Now, if you have a logical argument against the existence of God that doesn't include omni-benelovence then I'd love to see it. Omni-benevolence is not a Biblical trait of God, neither old nor new testament."

I just made it, but you're confusing me again. Do you believe that the bible is the word of God? Do you really believe that it is divine scripture? I ask because you mentioned it like it has relevance to you. If you do believe that the book of ancient Jewish fairy tales, I mean the bible, is divine then you certainly sound like a fan of religion to me.

"There is no evidence and you make this statement knowing that full well. So, no, you are not willing to change your position."

Oh no, you're misunderstanding me completely. I would scream to the high heavens that God does really exist if he just dropped down from his castle in nowhere's ville, came to Earth and in a loud and mighty tone said, "that's right, it's me bi***, who the God". I would quickly say, you the God. That would be cool.

You just know that I won't change my mind, because I think that deep inside that reasonable and logical part of your brain, you know that the likelihood of a personal God really existing is the same as the likelihood of scooby doo popping out of thin air and saying "scooby dooby do".

"I hope to heck that you're right. But I simply don't see the social trends that you do. The trends that I see are remarkably different. It seems like everytime we take one step forward into the light of bringing the public out of the dark age's mentality of traditional biases, we end up taking two steps back. And if you're going to consider the industrialized world, America leads the field. Well, religion is still hugely prominent in America today. Contrary to what the religious say, their numbers are still strong. According to what was posted in another thread on this forum recently, upwards of 60% of Americans claim at least some religious beliefs. That is not a society that is ready to lead the way to a fideism free future. And, let's face it, wherever we end up collectively, it is likely going to be America that is going to lead the way for the rest of the world."

I understand if you can't see it happening. Most people can't imagine great social advances due to the conditions of their time, but who would have thought that a man of African descent with the name Barack Hussein Obama would become the 44th president of the United States?

Most of the developed world is already secular (especially Europe). The United States has more secular people than it does African Americans, Jews, and homosexuals; and atheism is rising higher than ever before among 16-29 year olds. The debate against theism and religion is also much more accepted than ever before. When you start seeing crowds of people laughing at mythological religious beliefs that's when you know somethins a changin. Check out these articles below, it uses sociology, economics, psychology, and history to explain why religion and theism are in a slow, but sure decline:

Religion Will Be Dead Before The End Of The Century

Terry Sanderson: Will religion fade away: Religion will die. I'm just sorry I won't be around to see it | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 10:21 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:
Mysticism is not in conflict with parsimony. That which is mystical is that which there is no alternative view of. For instance, that we cannot ask why and expect an answer, that we can only ask how. The problems of significance and insignificance and the human desire for purpose, a purpose which does not present itself to us.

Science cannot speak of purpose, it cannot tell us why something is, only how it works. As Wittgenstein said(this is not the best translation):
6.4312 Not only is there no guarantee of the temporal immortality of the
human soul, that is to say of its eternal survival after death; but, in any
case, this assumption completely fails to accomplish the purpose for which
it has always been intended. Or is some riddle solved by my surviving for
ever? Is not this eternal life itself as much of a riddle as our present
life? The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies outside
space and time. (It is certainly not the solution of any problems of
natural science that is required.)


6.432 How things are in the world is a matter of complete indifference for
what is higher. God does not reveal himself in the world.


6.4321 The facts all contribute only to setting the problem, not to its
solution.


6.44 It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it
exists.


6.45 To view the world sub specie aeterni is to view it as a whole--a
limited whole. Feeling the world as a limited whole--it is this that is
mystical.


6.5 When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be
put into words. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be framed at
all, it is also possible to answer it.


6.51 Scepticism is not irrefutable, but obviously nonsensical, when it
tries to raise doubts where no questions can be asked. For doubt can exist
only where a question exists, a question only where an answer exists, and
an answer only where something can be said.


6.52 We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been
answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there
are then no questions left, and this itself is the answer.


6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the
problem. (Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long
period of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them have then been
unable to say what constituted that sense?)


6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make
themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.


6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say
nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science--i.e.
something that has nothing to do with philosophy--and then, whenever
someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him
that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions.
Although it would not be satisfying to the other person--he would not have
the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy--this method would be the
only strictly correct one.


6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me
finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them,
on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he
has climbed up on it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he
will see the world aright.


7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.


"Mysticism is not in conflict with parsimony. That which is mystical is that which there is no alternative view of. For instance, that we cannot ask why and expect an answer, that we can only ask how. The problems of significance and insignificance and the human desire for purpose, a purpose which does not present itself to us."

Mysticism is in conflict with both parsimony and verifiability. My problem with mysticism is not necessarily that it values sensual experiences. My problem is that it attributes supernaturalism to natural experiences, and does not seek to know the true nature of these experiences. In effect, it chooses blindness over vision.

There's nothing wrong with humans seeking a purpose in life, I just don't like the fact that they want to seek a purpose in something other than what is really real. Finding purpose in your life is not that easy, because there is no innate metaphysical purpose to life. A man (or woman) has to find their way to themselves to find a purpose. Having a distorted view of reality gives you a distorted view of purpose. This is the only life we have, and I refuse to spend however much time of it I have left distorting the reality of my existence. I want the raw truth of reality, and then I'll interpret what it means to me from there.

"Science cannot speak of purpose, it cannot tell us why something is, only how it works."

Indeed, this is true. Finding purpose or meaning to one's life is for the field of philosophy (ethics in particular), not science. Science is objective, but finding purpose in life is a question of values, and values are subjective.
0 Replies
 
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 11:40 pm
@hue-man,
I'm rewriting this because I had the whole post typed up but when I went to post it I got an error. Hopefully I'll remember it all.

hue-man,

I call myself a theist rather than a deist because I do believe that God reveals knowledge to man. I don't believe that he does it in a supernatural manner however. Also, if I recall correctly, deism bases reason for belief on logic. Well, my reason may be logical to me, but I doubt it would be logical to you, or to many others. And that's okay. Because my reason for belief is simply faith.

Now I do resent that you call it fidiesm faith. Fidiesm implies a desire to influence political opinion, I believe. Well, you know that I have made it quite clear that I don't believe faith or religion should play any role in politics or government.

We seem to have two different perceptions of agnosticism. I say that I do not know that God exists because there is no way to know. If a theist says that he knows it then he is lying, either to himself or someone else. So distinguishing non-agnostic theism as someone who believes that they know it is simply catering to the theist's lie. Rather, to say that I am a theist is to say that I know what I believe, which is that I believe God exists. An agnostic, on the other hand, doesn't seem to know what to believe.

I don't see the hypocrisy in saying that Richard Carrier's essay dealt with a certain conception of God but I have a different conception of him. How is that hypocritical? All I'm saying is that he's arguing against one thing but I believe something else.

As for the matter of God's benevolence, you say that if God is omnipotent but not omni-benevolent that he must be a f'd up guy. Well, doesn't that mean that if we don't do everything in our power, however limited that might be, to help other people that we are f'd up also? Ideally, I suppose it does. Ideally we should do everything that we can for people, regardless of who they are. But in a practical sense, no, it doesn't mean that we're f'd up. Because we all do the best that we can for ourselves and for those that we care about.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, (and this is something that even theists often don't agree with me on,) God doesn't care about everyone equally. As I pointed out in my first post in this thread, the Bible says that some people are God's children and that some people are not. Well, like us, I imagine that God cares more about his own children than he does about others. Isn't this natural? Is God benevolent to his children? Yes. But he isn't always benevolent in a manner that we perceive as benevolence. (Spare the rod and spoil the child, sort of thing...)

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be of the impression that because I read the Bible and that from that reading I have formulated a conception of God that I must be religious. Well, there's more to religion than just reading a book or believing in God. Suffice it to say that I have yet to encounter a religion that I agree with the dogma and traditions of. So I don't practice any religion.

I did laugh at the Scooby-doo bit, btw. Hey, it could happen. Laughing

As for the final part, I'll just leave it alone. Except to say again that, despite my doubt, I do hope you are right.
ACB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 09:31 am
@Solace,
Question for hue-man:

You have said that someone who believes is an agnostic theist, and someone who does not believe is an agnostic atheist. So what would you call a person who says "The arguments are finely balanced, and I just can't make up my mind whether to believe or not"? This is clearly a different position from either that of the agnostic theist who says "there is no verifiable evidence, but I believe in God", or that of the agnostic atheist who says "there is no verifiable evidence, so I do not believe in God". Can't someone be a plain agnostic?


Question for Solace:

Did God create those of us who are not his children? If he did, the 'children' analogy seems to break down.
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 09:41 am
@ACB,
Quote:

Did God create those of us who are not his children? If he did, the 'children' analogy seems to break down.


Did God create animals? Are they his children too? If so then I think any analogy concerning God's relationship to man breaks down. I think then that God can create something, anything, be it man, animal or otherwise, and not consider it his child.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 06:43 pm
@Solace,
Take a good look at what has been going on in this thread: we have assumed that God can have human qualities, and we have assumed that language is capable of accurately expressing God.

Can God have human qualities? If not, let's drop the benevolence talk. Can language accurately express God? In not, let's drop the speculation about omniscience, ect.
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 11:47 am
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
I'm rewriting this because I had the whole post typed up but when I went to post it I got an error. Hopefully I'll remember it all.

hue-man,

I call myself a theist rather than a deist because I do believe that God reveals knowledge to man. I don't believe that he does it in a supernatural manner however. Also, if I recall correctly, deism bases reason for belief on logic. Well, my reason may be logical to me, but I doubt it would be logical to you, or to many others. And that's okay. Because my reason for belief is simply faith.

Now I do resent that you call it fidiesm faith. Fidiesm implies a desire to influence political opinion, I believe. Well, you know that I have made it quite clear that I don't believe faith or religion should play any role in politics or government.

We seem to have two different perceptions of agnosticism. I say that I do not know that God exists because there is no way to know. If a theist says that he knows it then he is lying, either to himself or someone else. So distinguishing non-agnostic theism as someone who believes that they know it is simply catering to the theist's lie. Rather, to say that I am a theist is to say that I know what I believe, which is that I believe God exists. An agnostic, on the other hand, doesn't seem to know what to believe.

I don't see the hypocrisy in saying that Richard Carrier's essay dealt with a certain conception of God but I have a different conception of him. How is that hypocritical? All I'm saying is that he's arguing against one thing but I believe something else.

As for the matter of God's benevolence, you say that if God is omnipotent but not omni-benevolent that he must be a f'd up guy. Well, doesn't that mean that if we don't do everything in our power, however limited that might be, to help other people that we are f'd up also? Ideally, I suppose it does. Ideally we should do everything that we can for people, regardless of who they are. But in a practical sense, no, it doesn't mean that we're f'd up. Because we all do the best that we can for ourselves and for those that we care about.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, (and this is something that even theists often don't agree with me on,) God doesn't care about everyone equally. As I pointed out in my first post in this thread, the Bible says that some people are God's children and that some people are not. Well, like us, I imagine that God cares more about his own children than he does about others. Isn't this natural? Is God benevolent to his children? Yes. But he isn't always benevolent in a manner that we perceive as benevolence. (Spare the rod and spoil the child, sort of thing...)

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be of the impression that because I read the Bible and that from that reading I have formulated a conception of God that I must be religious. Well, there's more to religion than just reading a book or believing in God. Suffice it to say that I have yet to encounter a religion that I agree with the dogma and traditions of. So I don't practice any religion.

I did laugh at the Scooby-doo bit, btw. Hey, it could happen. Laughing

As for the final part, I'll just leave it alone. Except to say again that, despite my doubt, I do hope you are right.


Hey Solace,

Sorry I took so long to respond, but I've been pretty busy, and as I said, I don't plane on continuing this debate much longer. Let's try and wrap it up.

"I call myself a theist rather than a deist because I do believe that God reveals knowledge to man. I don't believe that he does it in a supernatural manner however. Also, if I recall correctly, deism bases reason for belief on logic. Well, my reason may be logical to me, but I doubt it would be logical to you, or to many others. And that's okay."

Exactly what knowledge do you believe this obscure God of yours reveals to man? Deism bases its reason for belief in God on two things - an obscure God of the gaps theory, and the cosmological argument/first cause. Both of those arguments are incredibly invalid, and that's why most deists became atheists in the 19th century.

"Well, my reason may be logical to me, but I doubt it would be logical to you, or to many others. And that's okay."

I hear you, but logic is not subjective. It either is logical or it is not.

"Because my reason for belief is simply faith."

"Now I do resent that you call it fidiesm faith."


The first quote reveals the reason why I called you a fideist.

"We seem to have two different perceptions of agnosticism. I say that I do not know that God exists because there is no way to know. If a theist says that he knows it then he is lying, either to himself or someone else. So distinguishing non-agnostic theism as someone who believes that they know it is simply catering to the theist's lie. Rather, to say that I am a theist is to say that I know what I believe, which is that I believe God exists. An agnostic, on the other hand, doesn't seem to know what to believe."

Agnosticism is a metaphysical position conceived due to a misunderstanding. Saying that you cannot know if God exists or not is an epistemological statement, and every atheist is an agnostic in this sense, because we never claim to know that God doesn't exist. I personally believe that anything that doesn't physically exist (can be described by physics) is an idea, and therefore does not really exist. However, the burden of proof is not on us, it's on you, because you are claiming to believe in God's existence. From a positivist standpoint we can say that the term God is meaningless in regards to reality, or what really does exist, because it is not verifiable. It is no different from claiming that Thor makes thunder, or that a leprechaun is guarding his pot of gold at the end of a rainbow in Ireland. With that said, I am as close to knowledge as I can possibly be on such a claim, when I say that God does not exist until he is proven to exist.

"I don't see the hypocrisy in saying that Richard Carrier's essay dealt with a certain conception of God but I have a different conception of him. How is that hypocritical? All I'm saying is that he's arguing against one thing but I believe something else."


I understand that you are making an argument against a conception that you don't believe. My point is that all of you on this board who have debated with me keep on saying that I am making assumptions about God, and I didn't even conceive of this idea, nor do I believe in it. The hypocrisy comes in because all of you are making assumptions with your own conceptions of this obscure idea of God, and yet you're criticizing other people for making assumptions/conceptions of God. God is not a physical reality, it is an idea, and the only way you can believe that this idea is true is to adopt fideism (or faith), or idealism, both of which are embarrassingly invalid positions that were discredited a long time ago.

"As for the matter of God's benevolence, you say that if God is omnipotent but not omni-benevolent that he must be a f'd up guy. Well, doesn't that mean that if we don't do everything in our power, however limited that might be, to help other people that we are f'd up also? Ideally, I suppose it does. Ideally we should do everything that we can for people, regardless of who they are. But in a practical sense, no, it doesn't mean that we're f'd up. Because we all do the best that we can for ourselves and for those that we care about."

Hypothetically speaking, if this God does exist, humans have collectively done more to benefit each other than your God ever has! If God is omnipotent and omniscient, and still chooses not to benefit mankind, then he is a f'd up guy. Sure, humans do not always help each other when they can or should, because of self-preservation or preoccupation, but God is not limited by human imperfections. The fact that an omnipotent creator being would refuse to help a dying child, or a pregnant woman being murdered by her husband, and the fact that he created all of these conditions by omnisciently creating the universe, is f'd up. But of course, this is just one of the many reasons that I disbelieve in such a being's existence.

"Well, not to put too fine a point on it, (and this is something that even theists often don't agree with me on,) God doesn't care about everyone equally. As I pointed out in my first post in this thread, the Bible says that some people are God's children and that some people are not. Well, like us, I imagine that God cares more about his own children than he does about others. Isn't this natural? Is God benevolent to his children? Yes. But he isn't always benevolent in a manner that we perceive as benevolence. (Spare the rod and spoil the child, sort of thing...)"

Wow, talk about assumptions. You talk like you've literally met this guy. The only evidence we have is that if a God does exist he cares about everyone equally, but only in the sense that he doesn't seem to care about anyone. Both the good man and the bad man suffer, and often time the good man suffers more in an unjust society. I've seen good, God worshiping people suffer greatly, so this argument is not only invalid, but unnecessary.

What is with the bible talk? Are you or aren't you a fan of religion. You seem to be very confused about your beliefs on this topic. The bible is a book conceived of and written by men in the theological age of humanity, and the book itself makes that vividly clear. There are books written by man that are much better on ethics, physics, economics, etc.

The dogmatism and fundamentalism that is expressed by the people who exalt these books is due to the very contents of the books. You are quoting it in support of your idea of God, and you call yourself a theist, so how can I not get the impression that your conception is at least in part inspired by religion?
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 12:08 pm
@ACB,
ACB wrote:
Question for hue-man:

You have said that someone who believes is an agnostic theist, and someone who does not believe is an agnostic atheist. So what would you call a person who says "The arguments are finely balanced, and I just can't make up my mind whether to believe or not"? This is clearly a different position from either that of the agnostic theist who says "there is no verifiable evidence, but I believe in God", or that of the agnostic atheist who says "there is no verifiable evidence, so I do not believe in God". Can't someone be a plain agnostic?


Hey ABC,

This is a good question, and I'm glad that you asked. I personally find the term agnostic to be unnecessary, whether you are a theist or an atheist. For an atheist, the position of positivism is enough to abandon the proposition of agnosticism. For the theist, the position of fideism is enough to abandon the proposition of agnosticism. There is, however, no question that agnosticism is closer to positivism than it is to fideism. In fact, it bears little to no resemblance to fideism.

At the end of the day, you cannot be a plain agnostic, because if you're not sure that you believe, or if you can't make up your mind, then that means that you do not believe, which makes you an atheist. It may make you a weak atheist, but an atheist nonetheless.

I fell that agnosticism is simply an invalid position born out of a misunderstanding of the issue, and I have personal experience with that. Agnosticism is really an epistemological claim that confuses itself for a metaphysical one.
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 12:38 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Take a good look at what has been going on in this thread: we have assumed that God can have human qualities, and we have assumed that language is capable of accurately expressing God.

Can God have human qualities? If not, let's drop the benevolence talk. Can language accurately express God? In not, let's drop the speculation about omniscience, ect.


I appreciate the suggestion, but maybe you should take a closer look. All of you who believe in some conception of God are making assumptions. It is only an idea, and not a physical reality, so how could you not make assumptions?

When did benevolence just become a human quality? When a dog helps a drowning child it's being benevolent to that child; when a gorilla protects a child who fell in the zoo cage from harm it's being benevolent to that child; when an avalanche, earthquake, or volcanic eruption kills someone or something it is not being benefiting that being. Benevolence is all about beneficence, and so we can objectively say whether something or someone benefits someone or something else. So when human suffering is ignored by an omniscient and omnipotent being we can say that the being is not benevolent towards us.

In fact, since this is God is the omniscient creator of the universe, that means that he was aware of everything that would become of it, and that means that this God consciously created the very things that cause suffering, which would make him malevolent. The only excuse for God is that he does not exist, and this is also the parsimonious answer to this problem.

I'm glad that you brought the philosophy of language into this discussion. Language is simply verbal communication, and we use it as a way to express our thoughts and ideas, and as a way to verbally describe our reality. Since God is an idea that has no physical basis for its existence, language is the only way to express your conception of him. There is of course body language, but If you point in a direction that is void of anything we can sense the person you're communicating with will only see the void. Therefore, God wouldn't even be known as an idea/concept if we didn't have language.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 12:47 pm
@Resha Caner,
Resha Caner wrote:
Cool. A new word. I didn't know what "fideism" was.


What do you think it means? The context certainly does not tell you. What does a "fideism free future" mean? The word comes from the Latin "fides" which means "trust" or "loyalty". Some dogs are named "Fido" ("I am loyal") and the Marine Corps Motto is, "semper fidelis". "Always faithful".
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 03:58 pm
@kennethamy,
Knowledge of God comes from experience of the divine, hue-man.

You go on to talk about an omniscient God: even that concept revolves around the human perspective. The language of man, according to every mystic tradition I've encountered, is insufficient in explanation God. It's all figurative, not literal.
hue-man
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 04:36 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Knowledge of God comes from experience of the divine, hue-man.

You go on to talk about an omniscient God: even that concept revolves around the human perspective. The language of man, according to every mystic tradition I've encountered, is insufficient in explanation God. It's all figurative, not literal.


Knowledge of God comes from experience with the idea/conception of God, not with the physical experience of the existence of such a being.

The whole concept of God comes from the human perspective! The fact that you use mystical traditions to support the statement that the language of man is insufficient to explain God is telling. You need language to make that very statement. Indeed, it is figurative and not literal, because it is not real, meaning that it doesn't really physically exist. It is as figurative as the existence of spider-man and superman, whose stories I happen to like better than Yahweh's and Jesus'.
0 Replies
 
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 05:04 pm
@hue-man,
Okay, I misunderstood fideism. I think I took it out of context in an earlier use from somewhere in this thread to mean to suggest that it had something to do with political motives.

Anyway, yes, hue-man, you were right to call it fideist faith; my apologies for misunderstanding you. I have no particular qualm with being labeled as fideist, no more a qualm than I do with any other label that might apply anyway. I do, though, disagree that I am religious. Religious is more a state of doing than being, I think. I do nothing that is religious and I think that most religious folk would agree that would make me decidedly not religious. But if you want to call me religious, so be it, I won't argue any further.

Yes, my belief is based in scripture, which is also the source of certain religions' beliefs and, at least partly, their dogma. I won't disagree with that. I just happen to disagree with what they say concerning this scripture. My own views on this scripture and my subsequent views on God don't conform to any religion that I have yet encountered. If I am religious, then, it must be a religion of one and will remain so until I find those that believe what I believe.

You asked,
hue-man wrote:
Exactly what knowledge do you believe this obscure God of yours reveals to man?

All knowledge. I don't believe that any of us know anything without God determining that we will know it.

hue-man wrote:
I hear you, but logic is not subjective. It either is logical or it is not.


Fair enough. My belief may not be logical then. But I'm not someone who minds that. If logic demands that I must abandon faith, then I will give up on logic. I value faith more than I value logic. That's just what works for me.

hue-man wrote:
However, the burden of proof is not on us, it's on you, because you are claiming to believe in God's existence.


I need to prove what I believe? Why? It's only a belief. I'm not proselytizing or trying to pass it off as fact. If I were doing either then naturally I'd need to prove it. But I don't care for facts about God, because facts make belief irrelevant. And I'm not telling you or anyone else that you should believe what I believe. I firmly believe that you should believe precisely what you do believe.

hue-man wrote:
The hypocrisy comes in because all of you are making assumptions with your own conceptions of this obscure idea of God, and yet you're criticizing other people for making assumptions/conceptions of God.


No, I'm not criticizing people for making assumptions concerning God; I'm criticizing the assumption itself, not that somebody made it. You, me, anybody has every right to make an assumption of God or anything else. But whether or not the assumption makes sense to me is another matter, and I see no more hypocrisy in me saying so than in Richard Carrier writing an essay that criticizes an assumption of God.

hue-man wrote:
fideism (or faith), or idealism, both of which are embarrassingly invalid positions that were discredited a long time ago.


Funny but I don't feel the least bit embarrassed for my faith. Logic may not be subjective, but embarrassment certainly is. If you find faith or idealism embarrassing then I certainly encourage you not to adopt either. I have no desire for you to be embarrassed.

hue-man wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if this God does exist, humans have collectively done more to benefit each other than your God ever has!


I should hope so. Shouldn't we have more personal investment in each other's well being than God does? What does he owe us precisely? But we owe each other an awful lot. People need to stop relying on God's benevolence and start giving it to each other.

hue-man wrote:
The fact that an omnipotent creator being would refuse to help a dying child, or a pregnant woman being murdered by her husband, and the fact that he created all of these conditions by omnisciently creating the universe, is f'd up.


This same issue was raised in another thread a couple days ago. I'll ask you the same question that I asked there. Remaining in the hypothetical mode, what would you have God do exactly? Do you want God to take away your ability to make your own decisions? Whenever you consider doing something unethical, immoral, harmful, or such, do you want God to interfere in your life and to tell you what you can and can't do? Do you want God to become the tyrant that you advocate, an omnipotent being who bullies less powerful beings into doing what he feels is right, regardless of what those beings want? Because it seems to me that this is the only alternative to the way things are now.

hue-man wrote:
Wow, talk about assumptions. You talk like you've literally met this guy.


Uumm... ya, isn't that what all of this talk about God is, assumptions? In your own words to another poster,

hue-man wrote:
It is only an idea, and not a physical reality, so how could you not make assumptions?


No, I haven't "met the guy", so for me it isn't a physical reality either. So whenever I talk about God, obviously, it is an assumption. It just happens to be my assumption; what makes sense to me.

hue-man wrote:
I've seen good, God worshiping people suffer greatly, so this argument is not only invalid, but unnecessary.


I don't worship God, nor would I, so I don't consider such an act to be good. But despite that, where did I say that good people don't suffer? I have suffered, and I will doubtless suffer many more times before I die. But I would not deny myself the knowledge of any sensation, not even the ones I don't like. A willful desire for ignorance of my own self strikes me as remarkably self-defeating... not to mention, dare I say it, illogical. So if God exists, why would I want him to never let me suffer?

And finally, the Bible is a book. It is not a religious book. One cannot do nothing and be religious. And a book doesn't do anything. It just sits there, being read on occasion. If the reader decides to take what he reads in this book and base a religion on it then his use of the book has become religious, but the book remains the same. Well, I am not basing a religion upon what I read. Heck, I can't even honestly say that I base my belief on it, because as I'm sure you've seen, some of the assumptions I make about God aren't exactly biblical. But belief and religion are not the same thing. If you don't want to accept that it's up to you, but most people in the world do see a difference between belief and religion, even most atheists. So I'll stick to the commonly held perceptions of belief and religion and I'll leave you alone to keep yours as you want it.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 06:56 pm
@Solace,
hue-man wrote:
Knowledge of God comes from experience with the idea/conception of God, not with the physical experience of the existence of such a being.


Experiencing God is a physical experience if mental processes are physical. It's not encountering the concept of God that is experience of God, it's encountering God in reality that is an experience of God: a mystical experience of God.

hue-man wrote:
The whole concept of God comes from the human perspective!


Just as the whole concept of numbers and mathematics comes from the human perspective, yes.

The notion of God, by the way, is not necessary for expressing or even understanding the truths represented by God: God, after all, is a word, too.

hue-man wrote:
The fact that you use mystical traditions to support the statement that the language of man is insufficient to explain God is telling. You need language to make that very statement.


Yes, you need language to make that statement: so what?

hue-man wrote:
Indeed, it is figurative and not literal, because it is not real, meaning that it doesn't really physically exist.


I recommend you look up the terms "figurative" and "literal". Figurative does not mean "not real" nor even "not in physical existence." I can say "the wall is twenty feet high" (literal) or I can say "the wall is as high as the walls of Troy" (figurative): yet, the wall I speak of can physically exist in both cases no matter if I use literal of figurative language to describe the wall.

hue-man wrote:
It is as figurative as the existence of spider-man and superman, whose stories I happen to like better than Yahweh's and Jesus'.


Actually, Jesus is an historic figure: and is therefore not like Spider-man and Superman. However, both Spider-man and Superman are myths: they follow Joseph Campbell's monomyth just as the story of Jesus follows the monomyth, just as almost every story known to man follows the monomyth.

Typically, religious adherents do not debate the fact that scripture is or contains mythology: that fact is obvious.

If you like Spider-man more than you like Christian scripture, that's fine. It's personal taste. Though, the Spider-man myth is not nearly as significant as the various myths of Christian scripture. Both the Jesus myth (his life as told by scripture) and Spider-man myth contain truths: it just so happens that the Jesus myth contains deeper insight.
0 Replies
 
ACB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 07:55 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
At the end of the day, you cannot be a plain agnostic, because if you're not sure that you believe, or if you can't make up your mind, then that means that you do not believe, which makes you an atheist. It may make you a weak atheist, but an atheist nonetheless.

I fell that agnosticism is simply an invalid position born out of a misunderstanding of the issue, and I have personal experience with that. Agnosticism is really an epistemological claim that confuses itself for a metaphysical one.


1. I understand 'atheist' to mean someone who believes that God does not exist. You are using the term to mean someone who does not believe that God exists. OK, in the latter sense a wavering agnostic is an atheist. But lack of belief in God's existence does not logically entail belief in his non-existence. I want a term that refers to people who cannot form a positive belief either way. If I do not believe that it rained in London on 1st July 1329 (because I have no evidence either way), it does not follow that I believe it did not rain in London on that date. I can perfectly well have neither the belief that it did nor the belief that it didn't. Similarly with belief in God; I can be agnostic in my sense of the word. 'If X is not the case, then not-X is the case' is valid; but 'If I do not believe X, then I believe not-X' is invalid.

2. You say agnosticism is an epistemological claim. Well, not necessarily. If someone says 'We cannot know whether God exists', that is epistemological and (I admit) weakly atheistic. But 'God may or may not exist' is a statement about God, not about knowledge per se; hence it is metaphysical, not epistemological.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Proving a negative
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 12:08:21