Does there exist a deity?

jamespetts wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
James

Quote:
You have still not defined what constitues an "ultimate" question.

Ultimate Questions include, but are not limited to, questions such as:

What is the nature of reality?

Is there a GOD?

If there is a GOD, what is the GOD like; what pleases the GOD and what displeases the GOD.

If there is a GOD, what, if anything, does the GOD expect of humans?

Is it likely that we have enough information to make a definitive statement about whether there is a GOD or if there are no gods?

Quote:
I do not accept anything as "Gospel", but there is good evidence to suggest that many conclusions reached by modern scientific enquiries are significantly more likely than not to be correct.

Please favor us with that evidence. (I don't think unambiguous evidence of that exists.)

Quote:
You have still not explained exactly what information that humans do not have that they would have to have before you suggest that they would be able to draw the conclusion that it is probable that no deity existed, nor have you explained why you have not so explained.

Because that would be near to an impossible task. I do not agree with someone who earlier said that negatives are impossible to prove -- but they most assuredly are more difficult to prove than the reverse.

That being the case, it would be better if you were to illustrate why you think enough unambiguous evidence DOES exists to allow us to draw a reasonable conclusion that it is probable no deity exists.

Quote:
The difficulty with this (presenting your case) is that different people have different definitions of a deity against which there are subtly different arguments. If you can define an example deity, then I can do this. However, I should also prefer if you answered my questions at the same time.

That seems to me to be a cop-out. You could pick a deity or two and build a case for why the probability of them existing is infinitesimally small.

But of course, that would still leave deities that cannot be identified -- that cannot be described.

The title YOU gave this thread, James, is "Does there exist a deity? You did not title it "Does the god of the Bible exist?" or "Does Zeus exist?" Obviously you were including all the deities that can be envisioned when you titled this thread -- essentially taking the atheistic position, that there are NO deities.

Further, you indicated that you included yourself in a group that has...thought about it, decided that you can make meaningful conclusions, and decided that the probability of there existing a deity is infitecimally remote...

That being the case, I ask again: Give us your thoughts, James, as concisely as possible, for why you think science somehow shows that the probability of a deity is infinitesimally small. We'll deal with the science as we go along. And this will give me a chance to interrogate you the way you have interrogated the few people who have responded to you.

Quote:
I do hope that your hip gets better soon.

I had a chance to hit some balls today -- and banged 'em outta sight. The hip was no problem. I have to work tomorrow -- and provided we don't get any snow (the forecast looks grim), I will play again on Tuesday. Thanks for your regards.

0 Replies

Max - let me address the two main issues that you are seeking to raise in relation to my post (and correct me if I have misidentified the issues at this stage); the first is what sort of discourse that I was hoping for, or what I hoped to establish, and the second is the question of whether such a question is capable of bearing a meaningful answer.

The purpose of my post was, at a philosophical and intellectual level, to demonstrate that belief in a deity is conceptually inescapably irrational and empirically almost certainly wrong, and at a psychological level, because I find debating this topic enjoyable (hence me joining the forum in the first place). For reasons which I shall explain below, I do not agree that it is futile to discuss this topic.

maxsdadeo wrote:

Faith and a belief in God can be summed up as simply as this:

To those who believe, no explanation is necessary,
To those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.

I gather that you would fall into the latter category.

You are making a positive assertion here; I don't think that you can deny that. You are positively asserting that it is possible for a proposition to be true, and rightly known to be true by a sentient being, and yet incapable of being demonstrated to be true. If you are saying something that is different from that, I should be grateful if you could spell out exactly how it is different.

But please understand - simply because you assert that the matter is incapable of debate does not make it so incapable. Whether or not it is incapable of debate is legitimately itself a subject of debate.

Let us examine again what you are asserting; you are asserting that it is possible for a human to acquire knowledge that is true, yet incapable of its truth being demonstrated. In effect, therefore, you are making the positive assertion that a mind is capable of verifying the truth of a given piece of information by means other than those which can be demonstrated outwardly to another human.

If this is a positive case that you are making on the nature both of the human mind and of the nature of truth, it is a case lacking in any substantiation, either conceptual or empirical. Are you asserting that the information is acquired by a human mind other than by human senses? Do you have any ground whatsoever for suggesting that the human mind is capable of this? And for clarity, that you contend to have recieved information that there exists a deity through this means cannot be a ground, because that claim itself is unsubstantiated.

If you are not asserting that the information is acquired otherwise than through human senses, how can you come to assert that the method of acquisition cannot be described in human language? Are you making the positive assertion that there are sensory experiences that are conceptually incapable of any measure of objective description by human language? If so, what are the grounds for making that assertion?

Furthermore, what you are, by necessary implication, asserting about the nature of knowledge itself is, I should contend, wholly irrational - you are suggesting that a person can rightly proclaim any given proposition to be right and yet similtaneously rightly hold it incapable of any enquiry. Would an infinite number of people holding between them an infinite number of contradictory views all contending that they are right without being capable of scrutiny be right, despite the fact that it is conceptually impossible for any more than one of them to be right at once? Or are you suggesting that only the proposition that you advance is capable of being held to be correct in such a way, in which case what would be your response to someone who claims to hold the exact converse proposition in that way, and what, in turn, would your response be to someone who responded to you in that way?

maxsdadeo wrote:

Now, when you get around to wanting to solve pi, or determining which was first, the chicken or the egg, at least you have some experience in matters that are, inexplicable.

I can't comment on Pi because I'm not a mathematician, but a very elegant solution to the chicken-egg issue was suggested to me some time ago, and there can be little dispute that it is correct:

The egg must have come first, in that it must have been laid by a creature but one genetic mutation away from being a chicken.

I shall look forward, as ever, to your response :-)

0 Replies

Thakn you for responding :-) You will see that I have now mastered the wonders of BBCode.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ultimate Questions include, but are not limited to, questions such as:

What is the nature of reality?

Is there a GOD?

If there is a GOD, what is the GOD like; what pleases the GOD and what displeases the GOD.

If there is a GOD, what, if anything, does the GOD expect of humans?

Is it likely that we have enough information to make a definitive statement about whether there is a GOD or if there are no gods?

Providing examples is not the same as providing a definition - you must accept that. "Penny Black" and "Airmail label" are no more definitions of "stamp" than what you say above is the definition of an "ultimate question". The purpose of my enquiry is to find exactly where you draw the border between ultimate and non-ultimate questions, as that will demonstrate the basis for you asserting that there exists this category of ultimate questions in the first place, and the basis for you suggesting that, on present evidence, they are unanswerable in the second.

The important thing is the rationale by which you pick things to include in the "ultimate" list as opposed to the "non-ultimate" list. I hope that you understand that, by "definition" I necessarily meant something that could lead anyone who read it to be able to categorise the questions in at least pretty much the same way as you. I hope that you will understand the rational for choosing what goes in what category is, in turn, itself very important for determining the rationale behind your further assertion that all items in the "ultimate" category are, on present evidence, incapable of meaningful answer.

I have not yet been shown any compelling or indeed coherent reason to accept that there is a category of questions about reality that can be called "ultimate", and that that category is conceptually different from all other questions, let alone that humans are positively incapable of answering questions in the "ultimate" category given present evidence.

Quote:

Quote:
I do not accept anything as "Gospel", but there is good evidence to suggest that many conclusions reached by modern scientific enquiries are significantly more likely than not to be correct.

Please favor us with that evidence. (I don't think unambiguous evidence of that exists.)

I don't think that anything is conceptually capable of being unambiguous, but that does not in turn mean that all humans are infinitely ignorant. I shall give you one example of a demonstration that a recent scientific theory has been demonstrated to be more likely than not to be correct:

The theory of special relitivity, if true, has many consequences, one of which is that moving objects experience time more slowly than stationary objects. To test this, researchers flew large numbers of the world's most accurate clocks around the world several times in an aircraft, whilst keeping a control sample of clocks on the ground. After the journey, the clocks aboard the aircraft were all recording that less time had passed since the beginning of the flight than the clocks that had not moved.

Quote:

Quote:
You have still not explained exactly what information that humans do not have that they would have to have before you suggest that they would be able to draw the conclusion that it is probable that no deity existed, nor have you explained why you have not so explained.

Because that would be near to an impossible task. I do not agree with someone who earlier said that negatives are impossible to prove -- but they most assuredly are more difficult to prove than the reverse.

I do not agree that I am asking you to prove a negative. You are making the positive assertion that the evidence presently available to humankind renders no human inherently capable of making an assessment on what you call "ultimate questions" (whose definition is unclear, but which almost certainly includes the question as to whether there exists a deity, which is the subject of this thread).

Necessarily inherent in that positive assertion, I suggest, and I hope that you will accept, when coupled with your acceptance that humans are capable given sufficient evidence of determining such questions, is that there is a particular threshold of evidence above which such decisions can be made and below which they cannot be made.

Also necessarily inherent in your positive assertion, as again I hope that you will agree, is the positive assertion that that threshold has not yet been crossed by the amount of evidence that humankind in general has before it.

Given that I am asking for substantiation of that positive assertion, it is reasonable for me to ask for you to provide the level of the threashold that is a necessary part of your positive assertion. In these circumstances, I cannot imagine how you are constituting the question to suggest that I am asking you to "prove a negative".

Quote:

That seems to me to be a cop-out. You could pick a deity or two and build a case for why the probability of them existing is infinitesimally small.

But of course, that would still leave deities that cannot be identified -- that cannot be described.

The title YOU gave this thread, James, is "Does there exist a deity? You did not title it "Does the god of the Bible exist?" or "Does Zeus exist?" Obviously you were including all the deities that can be envisioned when you titled this thread -- essentially taking the atheistic position, that there are NO deities.

Further, you indicated that you included yourself in a group that has...thought about it, decided that you can make meaningful conclusions, and decided that the probability of there existing a deity is infitecimally remote...

You do make something of a valid point here, and that is that if I say that the probability of there existing "a deity" is infitecimally small, then that must apply to anything that can properly be called a deity, and not just any given deity.

Therefore I propose to reach agreement with you on what the "minimum content" of a deity is, so that we can proceed to debate whether or not it exists. I had not done this from the outset, as I had envisaged the debate being against theists, who come ready-equipped with an in-built definition, and not agnostics, who do not.

I hope that you will accept that the word "deity", like any other word in the English language, is capable of a definition which leaves reasonably clear what is inside the bounderies of the concept and what is outside it. It may of course be possible to describe an entity which is very much like a deity but which is not, in fact, a deity: in fact, that must be the case if the word "deity" has any meaning. I suggest that the word does have, or at least is capable of having meaning, and therefore that there should not be any difficulty in agreeing a minimum content.

If you agree to this proposition, we can both post ideas as to what should go into this definition (and other may post, too), and then when we have a good series of ideas, we should set about defining a deity according to them.

Given that what is being proposed is a *minimum* content of a deity, i.e. that, for something to be called a deity, it must fulfill those criteria at the very least, I hope that you will also accept in consequence that specific characteristics of specific deities become irrelevent if it can be demonstrated that it is overwhelmingly improbable that any entity matching the minimum description can exist.

Quote:

That being the case, I ask again: Give us your thoughts, James, as concisely as possible, for why you think science somehow shows that the probability of a deity is infinitesimally small. We'll deal with the science as we go along. And this will give me a chance to interrogate you the way you have interrogated the few people who have responded to you.

As to the specifics of answering this question, given my proposal above, I hope that you can see that we will need to finalise that procedure before we can embark upon discussing the details of why it is so unlikely to exist.

There would be little point in me commencing to provide my reasons as to why my understanding of a deity could not exist if you subsequently suggest that a deity means something quite different in the first place. To give an example, I have known people who, during a debate, have suggested that the word "deity" literally means no more than the laws of physics. Clearly, I am not suggesting that the laws of physics do not exsist, so we shall need to define a deity based upon the understandings of one as promulgated by major world religions. That way, we can deal with any semantic issue before we start on the genuine content of the philosophical question, as debates that confuse the two are rarely worthwhile.

Quote:

I had a chance to hit some balls today -- and banged 'em outta sight. The hip was no problem. I have to work tomorrow -- and provided we don't get any snow (the forecast looks grim), I will play again on Tuesday. Thanks for your regards.

Excellent! :-) That must have made you feel better. Exercise is so important to a healthy mind.

0 Replies

James

Let me pass over the stuff that I consider mostly smoke in your last post -- and deal with the one issue (you apparently consider substantive) -- and which, in slightly altered form, I am willing to accept as substantive. We can get back to anything you think is important in the "smoke" if and when it becomes important to our discussion. BUT LET'S FINISH THIS FIRST PART FIRST!

This has to do with defining what you meant by "deity" when you wrote: "Does there exist a deity?"

I'm going to do some paraphrasing here, James, and if I do not read you correctly, please correct the impressions I have that you consider incorrect, so that we can proceed.

You apparently are saying that when you wrote: "Does there exist a deity?" you were limiting your notion of "deity" to pre-conceived notions of what a deity is -- preconceived either by the theists with whom you regularly debate or by yourself.

Now, however, since you are engaged with me -- an agnostic without preconceived ideas of what a GOD, should one exist, is like -- you want to limit what you mean by deity. You want to seek "boundaries" -- and to exclude entities which are "very much like a deity", but which "are not."

Hummmm!

Well, James, I'm sure you see the problem here.

As an agnostic, I am acknowledging that I have no idea of whether a GOD exists or not -- and if one exists, I have no idea of what the GOD would be like - nor how far removed it would be for humanity.

Most theists, since they are primarily motivated by fear of the unknown, posit a personal GOD -- one that concerns Itself with "the creation" and one that has rules of conduct for humans. Theists want to be humble before this GOD so that they will not offend it and either incur punishment or be deprived of what they call "salvation" or "everlasting life."

I wouldn't waste my time dealing with that kind of god -- not because I think it IMPOSSIBLE or even highly improbable that such a god would exist -- but because the fears upon which "godness" developed in early humans is, and always has been, so great, it is easier to suppose that kind of god developed as the result of the aforementioned fears than because of any actual "revelation."

NOTE: What I just said is not equivalent to saying that such a god is impossible or even improbable. I prefer not to argue that point; and in any case, it should be self-evident that I am simply saying it seems more likely that the scenario of a personal god is more likely to have come from humans dealing with fears of the unknown -- than because such a god exists and has revealed itself (rather poorly). If it absolutely has to be discussed and argued, we'll do it, but if you can contain that Socratic Method stalling predisposition of yours, James, it would save time not to do so.

The idea of the god of the Bible, for instance, is not worth the effort of intense intellectual consideration. The god of the Bible is absurd in and of itself -- although once again, I want to acknowledge that the god of the Bible may be the reality -- and the so-called "revelation" may in fact be actual divine revelation. But I consider the god of the Bible to be so far-fetched and laughable, I don't want to labor to show why it is more likely nonsense than truth. I acknowledge that if it turns out to be the truth, I am in a shitload of trouble for the rest of eternity because the closest I can come to "loving" or "worshipping" the god of the Bible is to say it is the most murderous, barbaric, ill-tempered, quick to anger, absurdly tyrannical, vengeful, pathetic, petty god ever to be invented -- and I would rather roast in some Hell somewhere than pay it the smallest bit of respect or reverence. It is not, in my opinion, even a likeable god, let alone a loveable or adorable god.

Now, with that out of the way -- I still feel there could be a "god" or "deity" of some sort involved with our existence - and, despite your feelings on this, especially if one takes into account the science (such as it is) of the day.

The whole notion of the Big Bang -- space and time and Space-time all coming into existence FROM WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY NOTHING in one monumental "explosion" or event -- seems more amenable to metaphysical explanations than to physical ones.

We'll get into that more as time goes on, but for now, let me propose something that tests the "boundaries" you want to establish -- and see what your reaction is to it. (I rather suspect you will find this to be OUTSIDE the boundaries you want to establish - but I am purposefully reaching way out since we have to hone in on the boundaries in some way.)

No problem if you find it to be outside the boundaries you want to establish. At very least, it will give you a chance to suggest boundaries of your own in your response. But please do not discount this (admittedly very far out) scenario without careful consideration.

Suppose it turns out that the reality is that what we call the universe -- the stars, space, and other stuff that we can see and can reasonable infer as existing -- the stuff of the Big Bang...

...suppose it is all just a tiny molecule in a test tube of a scientist working in a humongous laboratory in a vastly larger parallel universe...

...and suppose that the molecule was the invention of the Big Scientist -- part of an experiment he/she is performing for some undefined reason in the vastly larger parallel universe...

...and that the Big Bang was something the scientist CAUSED to happen.

Suppose all that and then I ask...

...would the size and scope of that scenario qualify the scientist as a de facto deity in whatever it is you hope to show as being so remote -- that its probability is infinitesimally small?

*****

It started snowing this morning and we have 4 inches of the stuff on the gound. My hip may feel better, but it looks like golf is still a few days off. Looking on the positive side: I'll have more time to devote to this interesting discussion.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

James

Let me pass over the stuff that I consider mostly smoke in your last post -- and deal with the one issue (you apparently consider substantive) -- and which, in slightly altered form, I am willing to accept as substantive. We can get back to anything you think is important in the "smoke" if and when it becomes important to our discussion. BUT LET'S FINISH THIS FIRST PART FIRST!

I really don't agree that anything that I said was "smoke". I wouldn't ask a question unless the answer had a purpose. In fact, I went through explaining the purpose at some length in the previous post.

I should be very grateful if you could address my questions on the constitution and evidence threashold of "ultimate questions", as that seems to me to be at the very crux of our debate, to the extent that it is capable of being the lynch-pin of your propositions on the more specific, deity-related matter.

Quote:

This has to do with defining what you meant by "deity" when you wrote: "Does there exist a deity?"

I'm going to do some paraphrasing here, James, and if I do not read you correctly, please correct the impressions I have that you consider incorrect, so that we can proceed.

You apparently are saying that when you wrote: "Does there exist a deity?" you were limiting your notion of "deity" to pre-conceived notions of what a deity is -- preconceived either by the theists with whom you regularly debate or by yourself.

Now, however, since you are engaged with me -- an agnostic without preconceived ideas of what a GOD, should one exist, is like -- you want to limit what you mean by deity. You want to seek "boundaries" -- and to exclude entities which are "very much like a deity", but which "are not."

Hummmm!

Well, James, I'm sure you see the problem here.

Actually, I don't. I used the word "deity" because it is a word with a meaning, and that meaning is the closest thing to the point that I was making.

If you are saying that the word "deity" has definitions that have not yet been concieved of, and that must be what you mean when you suggest that "pre-concieved notions" of a deity are a problem, then that would necessarily reduce any debate concerning whether such things exist to an inherently meaningless exercise.

You are essentially suggesting that I am asking, "Does something that no-one has concieved of yet exist?", which would be an absurd question.

By "deity", I meant deity as defined by any reasonably popular religion, either now or in the past. If your position is, and whether or not it is is really quite unclear, that that more traditional definition of deity, as I intended it to be meant, is laughable, can I take it then that our disagreement is more imagined and real in any event and centres only on the entirely trivial matter as to the meaning that one chooses to attach to a particular word in the English language?

If you define a word so broadly that it could mean anything, then by necessity, it means nothing.

Quote:

As an agnostic, I am acknowledging that I have no idea of whether a GOD exists or not -- and if one exists, I have no idea of what the GOD would be like - nor how far removed it would be for humanity.

Am I right in surmising this to mean that you have no idea whether something that you haven't thought of yet exists?

Quote:

Most theists, since they are primarily motivated by fear of the unknown, posit a personal GOD -- one that concerns Itself with "the creation" and one that has rules of conduct for humans. Theists want to be humble before this GOD so that they will not offend it and either incur punishment or be deprived of what they call "salvation" or "everlasting life."

I wouldn't waste my time dealing with that kind of god -- not because I think it IMPOSSIBLE or even highly improbable that such a god would exist -- but because the fears upon which "godness" developed in early humans is, and always has been, so great, it is easier to suppose that kind of god developed as the result of the aforementioned fears than because of any actual "revelation."

NOTE: What I just said is not equivalent to saying that such a god is impossible or even improbable. I prefer not to argue that point; and in any case, it should be self-evident that I am simply saying it seems more likely that the scenario of a personal god is more likely to have come from humans dealing with fears of the unknown -- than because such a god exists and has revealed itself (rather poorly). If it absolutely has to be discussed and argued, we'll do it, but if you can contain that Socratic Method stalling predisposition of yours, James, it would save time not to do so.

Why do you prefer not to argue the point? Surely this is the very point that is the basis of this entire thread? The other points are all preludes.

And you still haven't enlightened me on what the Socratic Method of debate is and what, if anything, is wrong with it.

Quote:

The idea of the god of the Bible, for instance, is not worth the effort of intense intellectual consideration. The god of the Bible is absurd in and of itself -- although once again, I want to acknowledge that the god of the Bible may be the reality -- and the so-called "revelation" may in fact be actual divine revelation. But I consider the god of the Bible to be so far-fetched and laughable, I don't want to labor to show why it is more likely nonsense than truth.

You don't have to. I already agree with that. Do I take this to mean that you largely agree with my perspective, save for the definition of "deity"?

Quote:

I acknowledge that if it turns out to be the truth, I am in a shitload of trouble for the rest of eternity because the closest I can come to "loving" or "worshipping" the god of the Bible is to say it is the most murderous, barbaric, ill-tempered, quick to anger, absurdly tyrannical, vengeful, pathetic, petty god ever to be invented -- and I would rather roast in some Hell somewhere than pay it the smallest bit of respect or reverence. It is not, in my opinion, even a likeable god, let alone a loveable or adorable god.

At least you're not a follower of Pascal ;-)

Quote:

Now, with that out of the way -- I still feel there could be a "god" or "deity" of some sort involved with our existence - and, despite your feelings on this, especially if one takes into account the science (such as it is) of the day.

Yes, but how do you *define* "God" or "deity"? You must accept that, without those words having a definition, what you said by necessity is incapable of having any meaning at all.

Quote:

The whole notion of the Big Bang -- space and time and Space-time all coming into existence FROM WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY NOTHING in one monumental "explosion" or event -- seems more amenable to metaphysical explanations than to physical ones.

I'm not sure that I agree that any theory suggests that the "Big Bang" generated something from nothing. The traditional theory was that the "Big Bang" caused a mass of ultra-dense matter to disperse about the known universe into the really extremely low-density matter that is commonplace in the known universe now. That is not by any stretch creating something from nothing, but changing the form of a something.

Quote:

We'll get into that more as time goes on, but for now, let me propose something that tests the "boundaries" you want to establish -- and see what your reaction is to it. (I rather suspect you will find this to be OUTSIDE the boundaries you want to establish - but I am purposefully reaching way out since we have to hone in on the boundaries in some way.)

No problem if you find it to be outside the boundaries you want to establish. At very least, it will give you a chance to suggest boundaries of your own in your response. But please do not discount this (admittedly very far out) scenario without careful consideration.

Suppose it turns out that the reality is that what we call the universe -- the stars, space, and other stuff that we can see and can reasonable infer as existing -- the stuff of the Big Bang...

...suppose it is all just a tiny molecule in a test tube of a scientist working in a humongous laboratory in a vastly larger parallel universe...

The latest scientific theories suggest that this is unlikely, but they're not infallible, so I'll accept it as a reasonable possibility, if not an even possibility or probability.

Quote:

...and suppose that the molecule was the invention of the Big Scientist -- part of an experiment he/she is performing for some undefined reason in the vastly larger parallel universe...

...and that the Big Bang was something the scientist CAUSED to happen.

Suppose all that and then I ask...

...would the size and scope of that scenario qualify the scientist as a de facto deity in whatever it is you hope to show as being so remote -- that its probability is infinitesimally small?

Your Big Scientist is not a deity as I understand the word: a deity is both omniscient and omnipotent, and must exist before anything else exists. Other "deity" criteria which are fulfilled by your model is that deities must be sentient and that they must choose to cause existance to happen.

Some theists also claim that they deity is omnipresent, and "is" everything in existance. I am not sure how universal that that is, but I do not think that I need that for my proposition.

However, I should suggest that the possibility of your Big Scientist theory being true to be unimaginably remote, albeit marginally more likely than a deity by my definition.

Quote:

*****

It started snowing this morning and we have 4 inches of the stuff on the gound. My hip may feel better, but it looks like golf is still a few days off. Looking on the positive side: I'll have more time to devote to this interesting discussion.

LOL That should be fun ;-) Can't you play golf in the snow? I'm sure that somebody has invented a black ball for this very eventuality...

0 Replies

James

Trying to debate you is like trying to nail gelatin to the ceiling.

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that Craven was right when he charged almost immediately after this thread presented itself that you are trying to entrap rather than discuss and debate.

In a thread which YOU titled "Does there exist a deity?" -- you have said that you are among the people who have "thought about it, decided that you can make meaningful conclusions, and decided that the probability of there existing a deity is infitecimally remote..."

You have also indicated that the phrase "overwhelming probability" suffices for what is meant for that kind of conclusion or (near) certainty.

I do not think you can do it -- and you do not seem especially interested in getting about the business of doing so.

I can certainly conceive of a deity that has very few of the characteristics of the god of the Bible -- and that has none of the requisites you seem to think is necessary for a deity. This omni-whatever nonsense you've raised, is not, in my opinion, a necessary ingredient in the make up of a deity. The "personal GOD" facet is not a necessity. Even in a personal GOD, the idea of rules of conduct is not a necessity.

We could play with this back and forth banter about what constitutes a deity for the next several months and never come to a conclusion -- sort of like the game you are playing with Ultimate Questions. Anyone as intelligent as you should be able to look at the examples I gave and derive a notion of what I mean by Ultimate Questions just from the nature of the examples. You could then use your impression of what I mean by that phrase in whatever way you wanted. If a major problem developed because of a misunderstanding of the term, we could easily settle it when we meet it. But instead, you play this game.

Let me see if I can put a stop to the game playing and get down to business.

I don't think you can even show it to be infinitesimally improbable that the god of the Bible -- that cartoon caricature of a god -- exists.

Give it a try.

At least we will get that out of the way -- and I can determine from your efforts there whether it is worthwhile to put more time and energy into playing this question and answer game that is going on.

Give me the evidence you say exists that shows that the probability that the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition worships -- is infinitesimally small. If you do a good job there, we'll move on to bigger and better GODS.

0 Replies

Frank, You just reduced us to a bunch of midgets. Smile

Big Bang, Creation, what's the difference? We're here for the short term, and wasting one's time trying to figure out all the mysteries of life by creating deity/god gets us nowhere fast. While we are here, make the best of what we have. Hell, some die at birth, and some live to be over 100 years old. Just be thankful for what you got, and share the good will. That's enough! c.i.

0 Replies

I agree that we must define what we mean by "deity" before we can argue whether such an entity exists.

If a deity did nothing but create the universe and does not personally care about the earth and its inhabitants, it would not matter to us whether it existed or not.

The only deities that should concern us are ones that are concerned about us, control us, and/or judge us at the end. If a deity is also willing and able to intervene on our behalf, we need to know how to request help and what it requires in return.

Quote:

"Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessed unworthy." -Ambrose Bierce

There is no reason why a deity need be omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. Its powers might be limited by the physical laws of the universe. It is doubtful that it could know the exact position and momentum of every particle at all times, and it certainly cannot know or affect what is happening everywhere in the universe without violating the principles of relativity.

At a minimum, all a deity needs is the ability to observe and communicate with mankind. It would be nice if it could affect the physical world and protect us from harm, but there is no evidence that it does. It should be wiser and more knowledgeable than us with a Plan that ultimately makes our suffering worthwhile. It should influence individuals to behave ethically for the good of all, even though there is no proof that consciousness survives death or that souls are rewarded in paradise or punished for sins.

The force that created the universe may be entirely different than whatever guides evolution and governs life on earth. There may be multiple deities with different abilities and duties. Who knows? Lots of people say that they know, but their claims about gods are contradictory and none of them can show that the god they believe in really exists while the other gods are just myths.

0 Replies

Let us suppose that deity exists, and think how you exist, what you are.., and if you find nothing incosistent in your existence with the supposed existence of deity, then diety already exists in your mind as the trusted existence.

0 Replies

Terry

I appreciate the fact that in the long run, the word "deities" will have to be defined in order to test James' ability to show that he has evidence that the existence of a deity is so remote as to be infinitesimally small. But if James goes on with all this minutia, we may never get to any test at all. I really would like to see his arguments for why the god of the Bible does not exist -- and see if they meet a reasonable standard of logic.

You and I have just spent the last two years debating Ican over in Abuzz -- with Ican defending the exact opposite perspective from that of James.

(James: Ican is a guy who uses science, math, and logic purportedly to show that the probability of there NOT being some kind of intelligence {a god} is infinitesimally small.)

I don't think James can meet a reasonable test of preponderance of the evidence in showing the possibility of the existence of the god of the Bible to be infinitesimally small, but I would like to give him a chance. I suspect I know the kinds of arguments he will use -- and I suspect he will show the absurdity of lots of things -- but I doubt he will show that the possibility of the existence of the god of the Bible to be infinitesimally small -- even though you and I, like he, are convinced that is the case.

I hope we don't bog down in this definition -- and I hope you don't insist on it at the present. Best if James started on his arguments re: the god of the Bible -- and perhaps the work on a definition of a deity can be undertaken concurrently. (If James' reaction to my use of the words Ultimate Questions, innocuous as that is, is any indication, I suspect the definition of a deity will stretch out forever.)

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

James

Trying to debate you is like trying to nail gelatin to the ceiling.

Why do you say that? The questions that I ask have a very specific basis: they are necessary to subject your positive assertions to due logical scrutiny. A proposition can withstand logical scrutiny if the proponent can answer all relevent and valid questions about in ways wholly consistent both with the proposition being true and with all other matters which both the proponent and enquirer hold to be true. If there is a disagreement between the proponent and enquirer as to whether any given proposiiton is true, the same process needs to be embarked upon in relation to that proposition.

And you *still* haven't told me what the Socratic method of debate is, nor what, if anything, is wrong with it.

Quote:

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that Craven was right when he charged almost immediately after this thread presented itself that you are trying to entrap rather than discuss and debate.

In a thread which YOU titled "Does there exist a deity?" -- you have said that you are among the people who have "thought about it, decided that you can make meaningful conclusions, and decided that the probability of there existing a deity is infitecimally remote..."

You have also indicated that the phrase "overwhelming probability" suffices for what is meant for that kind of conclusion or (near) certainty.

I do not think you can do it -- and you do not seem especially interested in getting about the business of doing so.

You seem very keen on requiring me to support positive assertions, which of course is wholly reasonable, yet when I scrutinise your positive assertions, you ignore my questions in subsequent posts. You have made a number of important positive assertions in relation to human knowledge and the sort of questions that humans are capable of answering, and have done nothing to follow up my questions on the topic. Do you or do you not stand by those assertions?

Quote:

I can certainly conceive of a deity that has very few of the characteristics of the god of the Bible -- and that has none of the requisites you seem to think is necessary for a deity.

No doubt you can concieve of *something* with these characteristics, but it is purely a matter of semantics as to whether such a thing can rightly be said to be a "deity".

Quote:

This omni-whatever nonsense you've raised, is not, in my opinion, a necessary ingredient in the make up of a deity.

Well, then, what exactly is a necessary component of a "deity"? What is the minimum content? What differentiates, in your opinion, a deity from a non-deity?

Quote:

We could play with this back and forth banter about what constitutes a deity for the next several months and never come to a conclusion -- sort of like the game you are playing with Ultimate Questions.

Of course, we could spend for ever and a day trying to agree on what the word should mean, but that would not be a debate of substance. Ignoring the semantic issues (undoubtedly the best way forward), the question undoubtedly must be "does an entity with the following properties exist?", there following a list of properties for an entity that either you or I might choose to call a "deity".

And I do not agree that the dicussions surrounding your still undefined notion of "ultimate questions" is any more a game than the rest of this debate - I was subjecting your positive assertion to legitimate scrutiny, as described above. Given that you rested your entire proposition and position on the point at one time, it was entirely reasonable of me to seek to scrutinise the point in that way.

Quote:

Anyone as intelligent as you should be able to look at the examples I gave and derive a notion of what I mean by Ultimate Questions just from the nature of the examples.

Not if they don't agree that there exist such things as "ultimate questions" as distinct from "non-ultimate questions".

Quote:

You could then use your impression of what I mean by that phrase in whatever way you wanted. If a major problem developed because of a misunderstanding of the term, we could easily settle it when we meet it. But instead, you play this game.

In what sense do you assert that I am playing a "game"?

Quote:

Let me see if I can put a stop to the game playing and get down to business.

I don't think you can even show it to be infinitesimally improbable that the god of the Bible -- that cartoon caricature of a god -- exists.

Give it a try.

At least we will get that out of the way -- and I can determine from your efforts there whether it is worthwhile to put more time and energy into playing this question and answer game that is going on.

Give me the evidence you say exists that shows that the probability that the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition worships -- is infinitesimally small. If you do a good job there, we'll move on to bigger and better GODS.

Now this is starting not to make sense. In your post to Terry, you say:

Quote:

I doubt he will show that the possibility of the existence of the god of the Bible to be infinitesimally small -- even though you and I, like he, are convinced that is the case.

Are you suggesting by this that no-one is capable of convincing you of something of which you are already convinced?

The whole basis of debate is that we discuss why we draw different conclusions from matters on which we both agree. If we both agree on the ultimate conclusion, then what is there left to discuss? Conversely, if you are not able to agree on anything, then how will we ever be in a position to start discussing things?

It seems that it is you who is playing games.

0 Replies

[quote="jamespetts

Quote:

Let me see if I can put a stop to the game playing and get down to business.

I don't think you can even show it to be infinitesimally improbable that the god of the Bible -- that cartoon caricature of a god -- exists.

Give it a try.

At least we will get that out of the way -- and I can determine from your efforts there whether it is worthwhile to put more time and energy into playing this question and answer game that is going on.

Give me the evidence you say exists that shows that the probability that the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition worships -- is infinitesimally small. If you do a good job there, we'll move on to bigger and better GODS.

Now this is starting not to make sense. In your post to Terry, you say:

Quote:

I doubt he will show that the possibility of the existence of the god of the Bible to be infinitesimally small -- even though you and I, like he, are convinced that is the case.

Are you suggesting by this that no-one is capable of convincing you of something of which you are already convinced?

The whole basis of debate is that we discuss why we draw different conclusions from matters on which we both agree. If we both agree on the ultimate conclusion, then what is there left to discuss? Conversely, if you are not able to agree on anything, then how will we ever be in a position to start discussing things?

It seems that it is you who is playing games.[/quote]

I am very open minded, James. Please do not worry that I will refuse to acknowledge that you have shown something to be so -- if indeed you show that thing to be so.

We are now days and pages into this discussion -- and you have yet to produce the evidence you say exists that will show the probability of a deity existing is infinitesimally small. We are talking all around it.

I have suggested you start with the easiest deity available for your discourse -- the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Produce the evidence that indicates that the probability of that god existing is infinitesimally small. I'd like to see what you have in store for us before going on to more complicated and subtler possible deities.

Obviously, when we get to that area of discussion -- the issues will be more complicated, because in fact, YOU MAY ALREADY have your mind made up and it may be closed -- to the point that whenever you cannot show the probability of a particular possible deity to be infinitesimally small -- you may simply choose to define that entity as NOT-deity.

So let's see how open-minded you are. Show us that you have evidence that indicates that the probability that the existence of the god most westerners currently worship is infinitesimally small.

NOTICE THAT I HAVE NOT asked you what you mean by "infinitesimally small."

0 Replies

James

I may be way off base on this next comment -- and if I am I apologize in advance.

You have stated that you very much enjoy philosophical discussions. I cannot imagine that anyone enjoying philosophical discussions does not know what the Socratic Method is -- nor the disadvantages the method produces for the object of its methodology.

If you truly do not know -- and are not playing a game here -- just look "Socratic Method" up in a dictionary -- and your questions will be answered.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am very open minded, James. Please do not worry that I will refuse to acknowledge that you have shown something to be so -- if indeed you show that thing to be so.

We are now days and pages into this discussion -- and you have yet to produce the evidence you say exists that will show the probability of a deity existing is infinitesimally small. We are talking all around it.

You will recall, our discussion started when I posed a question, inviting those who contended that there existed a deity to demonstrate any rational basis for such a contention. You responded by contending (as clarified by later discussions) that humans, given the information which has so far been discovered, are incapable of making any meaningful judgments as to whether or not there exists a deity.

We then proceeded to debate *that* question as a spinoff from my original post (which you and I could not debate between us in its original form, because it required a theist). That is how the question of "Ultimate Questions" started, which preceeded my later assertion that my position was that the probability of there existing a deity was infitecimally small.

It seems that you have decided that that subsequent corollory is the principal substance of the debate, and that the matter that we were debating when that arose is just "smoke" or "talking around the issue". I disagree. You have made a positive contention and, in a debate, that requires justification against all rational scrutiny such as I have presented. I have yet to see any.

Quote:

I have suggested you start with the easiest deity available for your discourse -- the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Produce the evidence that indicates that the probability of that god existing is infinitesimally small. I'd like to see what you have in store for us before going on to more complicated and subtler possible deities.

Obviously, when we get to that area of discussion -- the issues will be more complicated, because in fact, YOU MAY ALREADY have your mind made up and it may be closed -- to the point that whenever you cannot show the probability of a particular possible deity to be infinitesimally small -- you may simply choose to define that entity as NOT-deity.

So let's see how open-minded you are. Show us that you have evidence that indicates that the probability that the existence of the god most westerners currently worship is infinitesimally small.

NOTICE THAT I HAVE NOT asked you what you mean by "infinitesimally small."

I am not in the business of applying one standard to one party, and another to another, so I shall set out one of my reasons for making the contention to which you refer, despite you not having done the same in relation to my questions.

A foundation for the existance of a deity is that it would be impossible for anything to exist were there not a deity. However, that is a statement which is inherently incapable of being true. If nothing can exist without there first being a deity, then a deity cannot exist without there first being a deity, and, by definition, an entity cannot preexist itself. Therefore, a deity according to this description is incapable of existance.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

James

I may be way off base on this next comment -- and if I am I apologize in advance.

You have stated that you very much enjoy philosophical discussions. I cannot imagine that anyone enjoying philosophical discussions does not know what the Socratic Method is -- nor the disadvantages the method produces for the object of its methodology.

If you truly do not know -- and are not playing a game here -- just look "Socratic Method" up in a dictionary -- and your questions will be answered.

I do enjoy philosophical discussions, and yet I do not know what the "Socratic method" is. I am sorry if you have difficulty imagining me.

My interest in philosophy stems from an interest in ideas, not the history of philosophers, so you will excuse me if my knowledge of them is not as sharp as that of others.

0 Replies

Dictionary.com says:

"The Socratic method of reasoning and instruction was by a series of questions leading the one to whom they were addressed to perceive and admit what was true or false in doctrine, or right or wrong in conduct."

This does not strike me as being a bad way of doing things. I should be grateful, therefore, for your explaination as to why you think that it is.

0 Replies

James

Quote:

You will recall, our discussion started when I posed a question, inviting those who contended that there existed a deity to demonstrate any rational basis for such a contention. You responded by contending (as clarified by later discussions) that humans, given the information which has so far been discovered, are incapable of making any meaningful judgments as to whether or not there exists a deity.

I have never taken that position -- not here in this thread or any other thread. I have explained to you that I have never taken that position - and I gave that explanation on page 2 of this discussion. Anything based on that erroneous contention of yours should have been dismissed days ago. Please stop saying that I have expressed that position - and please stop using it as an excuse for not getting to your evidence.

Quote:

We then proceeded to debate *that* question as a spinoff from my original post (which you and I could not debate between us in its original form, because it required a theist).

There is absolutely no need for a theist to be present for two non-theists to discuss or debate theism. We most assuredly could debate your question in its original form. In fact, I am reduced to begging you to do so.

Quote:

That is how the question of "Ultimate Questions" started, which preceeded my later assertion that my position was that the probability of there existing a deity was infitecimally small.

If by now you do not know what kinds of questions I am referring to when I use the expression Ultimate Questions, I suggest that you probably do not have what it takes to discuss what you propose to discuss. Let us leave behind the meaning of Ultimate Questions -- and you may refer to my examples given earlier to get a sense of what I mean when I use the term. This is smoke!

Quote:

It seems that you have decided that that subsequent corollory is the principal substance of the debate, and that the matter that we were debating when that arose is just "smoke" or "talking around the issue". I disagree. You have made a positive contention and, in a debate, that requires justification against all rational scrutiny such as I have presented. I have yet to see any."

What is that positive contention that you want to debate before finally getting to the meat of this thing?

Quote:
I am not in the business of applying one standard to one party, and another to another, so I shall set out one of my reasons for making the contention to which you refer, despite you not having done the same in relation to my questions.

I still do not understand what in hell you are talking about here, but every time I respond to these kinds of side track -- we go off on a tangent.

WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT LEADS YOU TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROBABILITY OF A DEITY EXISTING (even if it is none other than the deity currently popular in the west) SO THAT WE CAN FINALLY GET ON WITH THIS THING?

QUOTE] A foundation for the existance of a deity is that it would be impossible for anything to exist were there not a deity.

If that is your opening salvo, James, I now understand why you were so reluctant to get started.

Why would any intelligent, logical person possibly propose a definition of a deity that contains an inherent and built-in impossibility?

I have never heard any theist propose, "it is impossible for anything to exist were there not a deity."

We all (except for Sophists) agree that existence is here.

Some of us argue that existence IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN (to some degree) WITHOUT the involvement of a deity. These people normally refer to themselves as atheists.

Some of us argue that a deity IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN and the rest of existence was the CREATION of the deity. It is not necessary for the theist to then add IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST IF THERE WERE NO DEITY.

It would be stupid for a theist to argue that way -- and while I am willing to concede that there probably are enough stupid theists around to actually do so, in 35 years of intensive debates on these kinds of issues in a variety of media -- I HAVE NEVER HEARD A THEIST MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT.

And since such a statement contains the impossibility you mentioned, I dare say I will never hear an intelligent, thinking theist make the statement as you presented it.

I suggest the sentence is a gratuitous sentence which you put in here just to have something easy to pull apart.

Quote:

However, that is a statement which is inherently incapable of being true. If nothing can exist without there first being a deity, then a deity cannot exist without there first being a deity, and, by definition, an entity cannot preexist itself. Therefore, a deity according to this description is incapable of existance.

Yes, of course.

But just as you have put words in my mouth as motioned up above, James, you are putting an absurd statement into the mouth of a theist defining their god -- so that you can say that god cannot exist.

I will acknowledge this: When we get around to defining other kinds of deities -- if in order for you to accept an entity as a deity -- the deity must first meet the standard of "...it is impossible for anything to exist were there not a deity..." -- you are going to win this thing hands down.

But no entity has to meet that standard in order to be considered a deity. I would say that the vast majority of informed, intelligent, logical theists who accept the god currently popular in the west do not subscribe to this inherently impossible standard -- and it should simply be disregarded.

Please do go on with the rest of your evidence. This first argment really contained no evidence.

0 Replies

OK, Frank, I will let you have your fun. :wink:

If you guys like, I can argue the theist position since no actual theists have come forward to accept the challenge.

jamespetts wrote:

A foundation for the existance of a deity is that it would be impossible for anything to exist were there not a deity. However, that is a statement which is inherently incapable of being true. If nothing can exist without there first being a deity, then a deity cannot exist without there first being a deity, and, by definition, an entity cannot preexist itself. Therefore, a deity according to this description is incapable of existance.

God (by definition) has "always" existed and did not need to cause itself. If a deity could not have preexisted itself, then neither could the universe and it is therefore incapable of existing. The universe exists, and so does God.

Scientists have reason to believe that the universe suddenly came into existence about 13 billion years ago. They have no idea what caused it or what preceded it. God is that motive force/volition that preceded the big bang and caused it to occur in such a way that this universe would support human life, which required a number of cosmological constants to be set within very narrow ranges that were highly unlikely to all have been exactly right just by chance.

0 Replies

Jeez, Terry

You're a lot better at that theistic stuff than I thought you would be!!!

Thanks for chiming in. Please stick with it.

James probably cannot appreicate what a pleasant change this is from arguing the opposite side for so long.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have never taken that position -- not here in this thread or any other thread. I have explained to you that I have never taken that position - and I gave that explanation on page 2 of this discussion. Anything based on that erroneous contention of yours should have been dismissed days ago. Please stop saying that I have expressed that position - and please stop using it as an excuse for not getting to your evidence.

I understood that the position that you said that you did not take was that humans will always be incapable of answering your "ultimate questions". The contention that I attributed to you was that humans are incapable of giving any meaningful answer to "ultimate questions" given the present evidence available to them, but that given some unspecified further amount of evidence, might be able to answer them meaningfully. This is a positive contention, and its debate is just as valid and useful as the one in which you are seeking to engage me.

Quote:

If by now you do not know what kinds of questions I am referring to when I use the expression Ultimate Questions, I suggest that you probably do not have what it takes to discuss what you propose to discuss. Let us leave behind the meaning of Ultimate Questions -- and you may refer to my examples given earlier to get a sense of what I mean when I use the term. This is smoke!

This is not "smoke". In any event, there is no smoke without fire. My position is that I do not agree that there is a special category of questions called "ultimate questions" that cannot be resolved by humankind on present evidence. My position is that each specific question has, on any given level of information or evidence available to whoever it is that is charged with answering it, its own unique degree of accuracy to which it can be answered. There are some questions in relation to which virtually no information is available, to which no meaningful answer can be given. Whether or not there is a deity is not one of those questions.

Your position is quite different, at least according to what you have said so far. Instead of assessing each exact question on its own merits in relation to the degree of accuracy to which it can be answered, you create a special category of questions called "ultimate questions". Any question that meets certain unspecified criteria go into that category, and no question in that category can be answered meaningfully until an unspecified threashold of evidence is crossed, after which, presumably, all are capable of at least marginally meaningful answer.

I am asking for your definition of "ultimate" questions, because it is hard to see why some questions should be ringfenced in that way, and why a lot of questions should be treated together like that, and how they can all have one common trigger of meaningfulness.

The examples that you provide do not answer those questions. All but one of the example questions related to whether or not there existed a deity, and the one that did not was, "what is reality?". All of these questions have in common that they are questions as to the nature of the constituion of the universe. However, there are other questions relating to the constitution of the universe which I cannot imagine that you would say cannot have a meaningful answer. For example, "does anything exist?"; "what is time?", "what is the relationship between matter and energy?". If you think that your idea of "ultimate" questions excludes these sort of questions, then your example-based definition singularly failed to convey that.

Are you capable of providing a definition of "ultimate" questions so that someone who has no access to your theory but the definition would be capable of categorising questions as "ultimate" and "non-ultimate" in the same way as you? If you are, then I should strongly invite you so to do. If you are not, then the very strong inference is that such things are incapable of definition in the sense that they do not exist in the way that you claim them to exist.

Quote:

What is that positive contention that you want to debate before finally getting to the meat of this thing?

See above. The contention that you made and have not yet substantiated is the one described above concerning "ultimate questions", and the level of evidence necessary before any of them is capable of meaningful answer.

Quote:

WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT LEADS YOU TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROBABILITY OF A DEITY EXISTING (even if it is none other than the deity currently popular in the west) SO THAT WE CAN FINALLY GET ON WITH THIS THING?

Aren't you asking me to prove a negative, the very thing that you prayed in aid when refusing to answer my "ultimate questions" question?

Quote:

If that is your opening salvo, James, I now understand why you were so reluctant to get started.

Why would any intelligent, logical person possibly propose a definition of a deity that contains an inherent and built-in impossibility?

I doubt that any would. That is exactly why I contend that belief in a deity is so irrational. You may not have had experience of people making this point, but I have.

Quote:

I have never heard any theist propose, "it is impossible for anything to exist were there not a deity."

We all (except for Sophists) agree that existence is here.

Some of us argue that existence IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN (to some degree) WITHOUT the involvement of a deity. These people normally refer to themselves as atheists.

Some of us argue that a deity IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN and the rest of existence was the CREATION of the deity. It is not necessary for the theist to then add IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST IF THERE WERE NO DEITY.

Except that some do so in order to attempt to establish that it is necessary for a deity to exist.

Quote:

It would be stupid for a theist to argue that way -- and while I am willing to concede that there probably are enough stupid theists around to actually do so, in 35 years of intensive debates on these kinds of issues in a variety of media -- I HAVE NEVER HEARD A THEIST MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT.

Well, I have, which is why I used that proposition.

Quote:

And since such a statement contains the impossibility you mentioned, I dare say I will never hear an intelligent, thinking theist make the statement as you presented it.

I suggest the sentence is a gratuitous sentence which you put in here just to have something easy to pull apart.

And this response is exactly the reason why I wanted to be clear on the definition of a deity before I started.

Quote:

But just as you have put words in my mouth as motioned up above, James, you are putting an absurd statement into the mouth of a theist defining their god -- so that you can say that god cannot exist.

I am not putting words in anybody's mouth. People have actually said that to me during a debate. I am not in the business of inventing deities.

Quote:

I will acknowledge this: When we get around to defining other kinds of deities -- if in order for you to accept an entity as a deity -- the deity must first meet the standard of "...it is impossible for anything to exist were there not a deity..." -- you are going to win this thing hands down.

Wasn't it Sun Tzu who said that only a fool starts a war without first knowing that he will win?

Quote:

But no entity has to meet that standard in order to be considered a deity. I would say that the vast majority of informed, intelligent, logical theists who accept the god currently popular in the west do not subscribe to this inherently impossible standard -- and it should simply be disregarded.

Please do go on with the rest of your evidence. This first argment really contained no evidence.

Not all arguments have to be empirical; I hope that you will accept that. Indeed, those that are most likely to be sucessful are those which are not empirical, but those which point out ineherent contradictions in the proposition itself and its necessary consequences.

Given this debacle, which is exaclty what I predicted would happen if we started without an agreed definition, I must insist that we now define the minimum content of a "deity" before we proceed. What, in your opinion, are the criteria that any entity must fulfill before it is true to call it a "deity"?

0 Replies

Does there exist a deity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know