Does Atheism Poison Everything? debate; Christopher Hitchens vs David Berlinski

@fresco,

I give up. You're an international expert in full-contact origami, right? "No use" for such a concept? (1) But what if a Cresator-God has "no use" for you? And (2)But what if - and assuming you've not been there yet - a Creator-God were living on Eridani or on Kapteyn's Star, or on Luyten 1159-16, or perchance near the Martian Olympus Mons, or on its Arabia Terra? Wouldn't THAT possibility move you into the agnostic fold (ie, there may or may not be) into the self-styled "atheist" one (ie, there is NO God, and I HATE HIM too!)? Then too, perhaps you've already engaged in an I.I.O.? Now I'm off to Starbucks for a quik latte. Join me.

(I.I.O., F.Y.I., InterGalactic Investigative Odyssey)

2 Replies

@Arthur Durnan,

Quote:

. . . atheist" one (ie, there is NO God, and I HATE HIM too . . .

This is one of the most incredibly stupid posts i've seen at this site in nearly eight years of posting here, and that's saying a lot. What are you, some kind of ranting theistic hater monger? It is obvious to me that you not only know nothing about Fresco in particular, and atheists in general, but that you likely inform you opinion of atheists with nothing but your bigotry.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Ah, so you HAVENT been on an I.I.O. yet!! Wasn't it T.S. Eliot who wrote that humankind cannot bear very much reality. Included are those who actually think that the universe has emerged by the mathematically untenable conspiracy of total coincidence. Such an individual would probably head east to see a sunset. C'est tout croche, le monde!

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
. . . atheist" one (ie, there is NO God, and I HATE HIM too . . .

This is one of the most incredibly stupid posts i've seen at this site in nearly eight years of posting here, and that's saying a lot. What are you, some kind of ranting theistic hater monger? It is obvious to me that you not only know nothing about Fresco in particular, and atheists in general, but that you likely inform you opinion of atheists with nothing but your bigotry.

Durnan may be one of the "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" artists.

1 Reply

@Arthur Durnan,

Arthur Durnan wrote:

... humankind cannot bear very much reality. Included are those who actually think that the universe has emerged by the mathematically untenable conspiracy of total coincidence. Such an individual would probably head east to see a sunset. C'est tout croche, le monde!

Your post is interesting but wrong: there is nothing in pure mathematics to disprove the proposition that everything is due to chance. Separately, I completely fail to see how creole French proverbs support any teleological, theological, or meta-mathematical argument you're making.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
. . . atheist" one (ie, there is NO God, and I HATE HIM too . . .

This is one of the most incredibly stupid posts i've seen at this site in nearly eight years of posting here, and that's saying a lot. What are you, some kind of ranting theistic hater monger? It is obvious to me that you not only know nothing about Fresco in particular, and atheists in general, but that you likely inform you opinion of atheists with nothing but your bigotry.

Durnan may be one of the "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" artists.

Not necessarily - he obviously knows a very great deal. I only objected to his characterization of chance (versus necessity) as "mathematically untenable" - it is not. Ontological proofs lie beyond the domain of pure mathematics; Goedel's "proof" for the existence of a god is one of those:

Quote:

We must not presume that the only necessary truths are those which we can prove. Gödel showed the weakness of that presumption with his first and second incompleteness theorems. Nor should we presume that mathematical and logical truth encompass all necessary truths. There may well be many others.

http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html

1 Reply

@Arthur Durnan,

Quote:

Ah, so you HAVENT been on an I.I.O. yet!!

Neither have you, Bubba. Don't try to bullshit a bullshitter. Il ne faut pas chercher midi à quatorze heures.

0 Replies

@Arthur Durnan,

Arthur Durnan wrote:

(I.I.O., F.Y.I., InterGalactic Investigative Odyssey)

ummmm, if you're going to capitalize the G in intergalactic, wouldn't it be an I.G.I.O?

now here in Canada we have Igloos, but i think they're different than what you suggest

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Thanks for that information about Goedel. Having looked at a synopsis of his "proof" on Wikipedia, I note with interest this axiom on which he builds his argument.

Quote:

The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.

The problem with this conjecture for me is not its questionable status with respect to "conventional evidence", but Goedel's apparent failure to understand that from the point of view of "genetic epistemology" (Piaget et al), "we" and "the world" are ontologically complementary. Change one and you change the other. This point in turn delimits his usage of the word "reality" in other axioms.

This line of argument is obviously peripheral to the thread, but worth a mention for those who might look to Goedel for support for their theism.

2 Replies

@fresco,

You will kindly note that Goedel's ontological "proof" has no connection with his mathematical proofs - he was a very great mathematician (with Hilbert, one of the 2 greatest of the last century) and he unquestionably knew he was venturing beyond mathematics when he tackled ontology. The only way we even know of his ideas on any deity is via the diary of Morgenstern - a Princeton colleague - as Goedel never published or publicized them.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

If this poster is the Rev. Arthur Durnan, a minister, he should know all about igloos, based as he is in Ontario, Canada.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

Discussion is apparently a waste of time with the Rev. Arthur Durnan, a minister. He must make a living with his beliefs.

http://www.arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com/

BBB

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Well researched ! If he is, he makes the celebrated Hollis Mathis (self appointed preacher of Latter Day aA2Kers) sound sane !

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Thanks for that information about Goedel. Having looked at a synopsis of his "proof" on Wikipedia, I note with interest this axiom on which he builds his argument.

Quote:
The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.

The problem with this conjecture for me is not its questionable status with respect to "conventional evidence", but Goedel's apparent failure to understand that from the point of view of "genetic epistemology" (Piaget et al), "we" and "the world" are ontologically complementary. Change one and you change the other. This point in turn delimits his usage of the word "reality" in other axioms.

This line of argument is obviously peripheral to the thread, but worth a mention for those who might look to Goedel for support for their theism.

I don't see it at all as peripheral to the thread; the statement you quote, in particular was first brought up by Protagoras 25 centuries ago when he remarked "nobody enters the same river twice". Our universe is ever-changing, one in which "everything flows" (again from Protagoras) and probabilistic. Logically and mathematically the statement is impeccably correct - genetic epistemology itself shows that. On theology I have no opinion.

2 Replies

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

wow, what an incredibly underwhelming website

0 Replies

@High Seas,

PS too late to edit, so, my apologies: I started writing something more general and cited Protagoras, but the author of the phrases I placed in quotation marks is Heraclitus. The original Greek text with English translations of his Fragments is on several locations, but this is one of the most reliable ones:
http://philoctetes.free.fr/heraclitefraneng.htm

1 Reply

@High Seas,

I don't recognise that....

Quote:

"nobody enters the same river twice".

...as being equivalent to Piaget's "assimilation-accommodation". because the latter implies that both "body"(we) and "river" have changed . At the risk of "flogging" a river analogy, genetic epistemology might see "reality" as the "river" whose course is determined by both the fluctuating "observer" (the water) and the "co-fluctuating" observed (the nature of the bed ).

0 Replies

@High Seas,

PPS This is the specific passage I mentioned earlier (from Heraclitus link):

Quote:

You cannot step twice into the same rivers; for fresh waters are flowing in upon you.
ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμϐαίνουσιν ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ

Note to Fresco: sorry can't reply at length (have to pack to leave for a long trip) but Heidegger (as you know a very great classicist, who considered Heraclitus the greatest of all philosophers) and to some extent Piaget as well wrote extensively on the argument you mentioned. Thanks, goodbye Smile

2 Replies

@High Seas,

I can only assume you mean to say the universe is dynamic. I suppose next you'll be advocating quantum mechanics or wave theory.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Thanks. I look forward to further discussions.

0 Replies

Does Atheism Poison Everything? debate; Christopher Hitchens vs David Berlinski

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know