Does there exist a deity?

Terry - I hope that you will appreciate that the same applies to you as it does to Frank in relation to the need to define a "deity" before proceeding.

0 Replies

James

Quote:

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?

Not at all.

You have said that you have evidence that leads you to conclude that the probability of a deity existing is infinitesimally small. I am asking you to back that statement up -- to present your evidence for consideration.

Do it, if you can -- or acknowledge that you cannot do it.

You quoted me writing: "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?"...

...and then wrote:

Quote:

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.

James, if this is the entire of your argument -- you have just wasted a whole bunch of my time. It is a laughable argument -- and it is entirely contingent upon the theist asserting that existence is not possible without the prior existence of a deity.

I appreciate the fact that you have had people make that claim -- but to suggest that because you can debunk that foolish claim, you have shown that the probability of the existence of a deity is infinitesimally small -- is an absurd and completely illogical stretch.

Quote:

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

And because you can show that the people who do make this silly claim are wrong -- therefore the possibility that a deity exists is reduced to almost zero.

Where did you learn your logic? That is so far out, I almost feel embarrassed responding to it.

The fact that you can refute nonsense, James, is not evidence that the probability of a deity is remote. Give up on that notion.

You quoted me saying "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."

then you wrote:

Quote:

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

And you are basing your exaggerated claims of being able to show what your say your can show on being able to refute the absurd!!!

Gimme a break!

Quote:

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

We are using the god of the Bible in this example. If this is causing you trouble because it does not meet your definition of a deity - you are walking on quicksand.

Use the god of the Bible to make your initial arguments. We certainly all should be able to agree that the god of the Bible is a deity - and if we are not, then trying to define what a deity is will be little more than an exercise in futility.

Show the evidence you have that the probability of that god - the god of the Bible --existing is infinitesimally small.

So far, James, you have shown that you can successfully refute something that you admit no intelligent, logical person would say. Now what say we get on with your attempts to refute what an intelligent, logical person WOULD say.

Forget about trying to define what ANY god would be like -- that's just more of your smoke. Work with the god most people claim exists. Show that you have evidence that indicates it is almost impossible that it exists.

Or end this thing.

Most of the rest of your post was not worth a reply.

Let me get to your final comment:

Quote:

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"?

You are the guy saying you can show that the probability of the existence of a deity is so remote. If you cannot accept the god of the Bible as an example of a god you should be able to refute - I'm not sure what will fit your description.

In any case, you are the guy who says you can do it. Define the god. Whatever you leave out, I'll add.

I suspect this is farce!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

James

You have said that you have evidence that leads you to conclude that the probability of a deity existing is infinitesimally small. I am asking you to back that statement up -- to present your evidence for consideration.

Do it, if you can -- or acknowledge that you cannot do it.

I have never refused to do this. You, however, have repeatedly refused to engage in any discussion about your "ultimate questions" assertion, dismissing out of hand any discussion on the matter without any attempt to engage in it, and yet I still maintain, so far uncontested by you, that your assertion is equally bold an assertion and equally capable of debate as mine in relation to the extent to which the existance of a deity is probable.

I shall ask you bluntly, and I shall not appreciate you ignoring the question: why is your contention about ultimate questions less worthy of debate than my contention about the probability of a deity existing?

Quote:

James, if this is the entire of your argument -- you have just wasted a whole bunch of my time. It is a laughable argument -- and it is entirely contingent upon the theist asserting that existence is not possible without the prior existence of a deity.

It is not the entirety of my argument, as I thought that I made clear before I made it. I have different arguments against different supposed rationales for the existance of a deity, but if you cannot be clear on those that you want me to refute, then I cannot choose the right ones to deliver.

Quote:

I appreciate the fact that you have had people make that claim -- but to suggest that because you can debunk that foolish claim, you have shown that the probability of the existence of a deity is infinitesimally small -- is an absurd and completely illogical stretch.

Please let me be clear - nowhere in my last post did I say this. Indeed, what I said was "I shall set out one of my reasons for making the contention to which you refer..." (emphasis added). Given that I said that, I cannot see why you are now making that remark.

Quote:

And because you can show that the people who do make this silly claim are wrong -- therefore the possibility that a deity exists is reduced to almost zero.

Where did you learn your logic? That is so far out, I almost feel embarrassed responding to it.

Again, where have I ever stated that that was the entirety of my point? I was arguing against that particular definition of a deity. I had chosen to make that definition after inviting you to define one and you having refused, suggesting that I do it. If you now wish to dispute my definition, I suggest that you propose one.

Quote:

The fact that you can refute nonsense, James, is not evidence that the probability of a deity is remote. Give up on that notion.

My point is that it is nonsense to suggest that there is a deity.

Quote:

We are using the god of the Bible in this example. If this is causing you trouble because it does not meet your definition of a deity - you are walking on quicksand.

Use the god of the Bible to make your initial arguments. We certainly all should be able to agree that the god of the Bible is a deity - and if we are not, then trying to define what a deity is will be little more than an exercise in futility.

Show the evidence you have that the probability of that god - the god of the Bible --existing is infinitesimally small.

"The God of the Bible" is hardly a clear and workable definition of itself; it is open to so much interpretation that innumerable mutually contradictory ideas of a deity can be and have been created from what it says.

Were I debating with a theist, I should be in a position to ask detailed questions as to exactly how the opponent defines a deity, and tailor my arguments accordingly. Indeed, it was during one such debate that I came upon the existance necessity platitude discussed above.

In order meaningfully to have any discussion about whether any given entity exists, we must be in a position to define its precice bounderies in clear, unambiguous terms. Are you or are you not in a position to be able to do this?

Quote:

So far, James, you have shown that you can successfully refute something that you admit no intelligent, logical person would say. Now what say we get on with your attempts to refute what an intelligent, logical person WOULD say.

My position is that I don't believe that any intelligent and logical person (duly applying that intelligence and logic to the matter at hand) would contend that there exists any deity, because it is an inherently irrational contention to make.

Quote:

Forget about trying to define what ANY god would be like -- that's just more of your smoke. Work with the god most people claim exists. Show that you have evidence that indicates it is almost impossible that it exists.

Or end this thing.

I don't agree that there is a unified deity that "most people claim exists". From what I have heard talking to them, they all have their own, often contradictory, definitions and ostensible jusitifications.

Quote:

Most of the rest of your post was not worth a reply.

I strongly disagree with that, seeing as you provide no grounds for this statement. One can only suspect that you are avoiding arguing on grounds on which you are weaker. If the position is different, please do set it out in full.

Quote:

You are the guy saying you can show that the probability of the existence of a deity is so remote. If you cannot accept the god of the Bible as an example of a god you should be able to refute - I'm not sure what will fit your description.

In any case, you are the guy who says you can do it. Define the god. Whatever you leave out, I'll add.

I suspect this is farce!

I am not refusing to accept that "The God of the Bible" is a deity, but I am refusing to accept that it is a meaningful definition of on in and of itself - nowhere in the Bible does it define exactly, in clear, logically comprehensible terms, precicely what constitutes (and therefore precicely what does not constitute) a deity.

In order to be able to scrutinise, using the method that I described and you ignored in my last post, the existance of a deity, I have to ask questions which are not answered by traditional religious texts, such as, "what is the mechanism by which a deity influences matter, if you accept that it is not itself either matter or energy?". You will now see that we need to answer the question of whether the definition of a deity is something that is capable of influencing matter, whether it is contended to be matter or energy, and then what the answer could possibly be to that question before we proceed to construct a positive case, based on those answers, as to why it is indeed overwhelmingly improbable that there exists a deity.

0 Replies

James

Quote:

I have never refused to do this. You, however, have repeatedly refused to engage in any discussion about your "ultimate questions" assertion, dismissing out of hand any discussion on the matter without any attempt to engage in it, and yet I still maintain, so far uncontested by you, that your assertion is equally bold an assertion and equally capable of debate as mine in relation to the extent to which the existance of a deity is probable.

I shall ask you bluntly, and I shall not appreciate you ignoring the question: why is your contention about ultimate questions less worthy of debate than my contention about the probability of a deity existing?

James, where have I ever said that Ultimate Questions is less worthy of debate than your contentions about the probability of a deity existing?

This thread is about YOUR contention that you have evidence that suggests the probability of a deity is minimal. That is what should be discussed.

In any case, as an act of charity, (since you apparently cannot back up your contention), I will give you a respite by discussing Ultimate Questions with you.

"Ultimate Questions" is a term I coined to apply to questions such as I indicated in my initial response to your query on the phrase. I'll repete that reply here:

"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? "

My initial use of the term Ultimate Questions was given early in this thread when I was responding to a question you asked about science. I repete that here:

"With regard to Ultimate Questions -- I am an agnostic -- and that holds whether I am in discussion with theists, atheists, OR SCIENTISTS. I am as skeptical of scientific proclimations as I am of theistic or atheistic proclamations."

In response to the explanation I gave -- you rejected it as not being a definition -- just a set of examples.

Well, James, my response may have been just a set of examples, but I think it gave a good idea of what I mean when I use the term Ultimate Questions. And when you look at the term in the context in which I used it, I don't think there is a need for a much more detailed explanations or definition.

I think this is all smoke. I have no idea of what you mean by "You, however, have repeatedly refused to engage in any discussion about your "ultimate questions" assertion."

What do you want to discuss about....whatever "assertions" you think I made?

What is your point regarding the use of the term?

If you have a point you want to make about the expression -- WHY NOT MAKE IT INSTEAD OF ALL THIS STALLING?

What is your problem with my using the term Ultimate Questions -- for questions of the type I indicated?

And since you asked what is the difference between Ultimate Questions and non-ultimate questions -- well, the question "What did ya think of the movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?" is a non-ultimate question. So is "What did you have for dinner last night?"

Some questions seem to be non-ultimate questions, but even I can be fooled about that, James. For instance, I would have bet a lot of money that the question "When are you going to furnish your evidence?" was a non-ultimate question -- but you are proving me wrong in that assumption.

0 Replies

James

As to this definition of a deity thing...

...what do you consider to be the essential ingredients of accepting something as a deity?

If I like what you propose, I may accept it.

If I don't, I can tell you where I differ.

And maybe someday before the end of universe, we can get to whatever you have to offer to substantiate your assertion.

0 Replies

An interlude:

Suppose deity exists, first, then continue with giving "ingredients" as you like without inconsistency. You will find the deity is the reality.

0 Replies

(Suppose a triangle exists. Axiomatize its properties without inconsistency. You will find the triangle is an entity.)

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

James

James, where have I ever said that Ultimate Questions is less worthy of debate than your contentions about the probability of a deity existing?

I did not say that you had said it; my point was that your refusal to address the issue was consistent with you holding that to be true.

Quote:

This thread is about YOUR contention that you have evidence that suggests the probability of a deity is minimal. That is what should be discussed.

Why do you say that? I do not agree with that. Read the first few posts again. This was supposed to be a post about other people's contentions that there exists a deity. No-one was prepared to make or discuss that contention, and you instead contended that humans cannot answer that question. You later clarified it to mean that, given the amount of information that humans have available to them now, they are not capable of making any meaningful answer to any question which falls in the category of "ultimate questions", to which the question of whether or not there is a deity is one.

In discussing that proposition of yours, I mentioned that my position is that, after having considered the matter, I have come to the conclusion that the liklihood of there existing a deity is infiticimally small.

As you can see, therefore, that contention is by no means the very basis of this thread, but a contingent point made quite a number of posts into it. The main points - that some people contend that there exists a deity, and that it is irrational to do so, has not been discussed because no-one who is prepared to defend that contention has posted. The closest thing to that to discuss is your contention that, given the information currently available to humans, they cannot meaningfully answer "ultimate questions".

Given this background, I cannot understand your persistant reluctance to discuss this point, nor your constant and consistently unsupported accusation that the "ultimate questions" point is "smoke".

Quote:

In any case, as an act of charity, (since you apparently cannot back up your contention), I will give you a respite by discussing Ultimate Questions with you.

On the only occasion that I attempted to "back up my contention", you disputed the definition of "deity" in the way that I stated that you would if I defined it at that point without establishing the definition first. You cannot reasonably, therefore, equate me not furthering my point without clarifying from you an acceptable definition with me not having any basis upon which to proceed.

Quote:

"Ultimate Questions" is a term I coined to apply to questions such as I indicated in my initial response to your query on the phrase. I'll repete that reply here:

"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? "

My initial use of the term Ultimate Questions was given early in this thread when I was responding to a question you asked about science. I repete that here:

"With regard to Ultimate Questions -- I am an agnostic -- and that holds whether I am in discussion with theists, atheists, OR SCIENTISTS. I am as skeptical of scientific proclimations as I am of theistic or atheistic proclamations."

In response to the explanation I gave -- you rejected it as not being a definition -- just a set of examples.

Well, James, my response may have been just a set of examples, but I think it gave a good idea of what I mean when I use the term Ultimate Questions. And when you look at the term in the context in which I used it, I don't think there is a need for a much more detailed explanations or definition.

You may think that a non-exhaustive and approximate set of examples is enough to give one a "good idea" of what you mean by "ultimate questions", but that does not mean that it is. A few posts ago, I went into considerable length as to exactly why your set of examples are not adequate, and you have consistently ignored the points that I made. I invite you to read that post, and respond to those points in detail before simply re-making without substantiation the point which I dispute.

I can ask this of you - whether or not you think that your examples are enough to give an idea of what you mean, are you or are you not capable if producing a definition that would enable a third party to categorise questions in exactly the same way as you?

Quote:

I think this is all smoke. I have no idea of what you mean by "You, however, have repeatedly refused to engage in any discussion about your 'ultimate questions' assertion."

You keep accusing it of being "smoke", and yet provide no reasoned justification for so claiming. And are you seriously trying to deny that you have repeatedly ignored questions that I have asked and points that I have raised in posts concerning the "ultimate questions" issue, dismissing entire paragraphs in a short sentence calling them "smoke"?

Quote:

What do you want to discuss about....whatever "assertions" you think I made?

What is your point regarding the use of the term?

If you have a point you want to make about the expression -- WHY NOT MAKE IT INSTEAD OF ALL THIS STALLING?

If you are suggesting that I have not made all reasonable endevours to make my point relating to the "ultimate questions" issue in previous posts, you would be grossly misrepresenting what I have written.

I have repeatedly asked a detailed series of questions which have gone unanswered, and made a detailed series of statements which you have ignored. If I were to answer that question now, I should do no more than copy and paste from posts that I have made before. Please go back and answer all of the questions that I have asked in previous posts about your "ultimate questions" claim.

And, to clarify, I do not object to the use of the phrase, per se, but the specific contention that you make about it, as discussed in detail above.

Quote:

And since you asked what is the difference between Ultimate Questions and non-ultimate questions -- well, the question "What did ya think of the movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?" is a non-ultimate question. So is "What did you have for dinner last night?"

Again, this is a non-definitional answer. Your set of examples are like saying that Jupiter is "big" and that a grain of sand is "small", then giving no indication on whether a car, the moon, or the Earth would be considered "big" or "small" within that test (and I am sure that you will appreciate that it is fatuous to assume that the divide falls mathematically in the middle).

I have explained in considerable detail above the reasons for the need for a definitional answer, and you have not gone any way towards explaining why, given my explaination, you are unable to provide one.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

...what do you consider to be the essential ingredients of accepting something as a deity?

If I like what you propose, I may accept it.

If I don't, I can tell you where I differ.

And maybe someday before the end of universe, we can get to whatever you have to offer to substantiate your assertion.

I do not understand what you have against proposing a definition yourself, given that you seem so intent to have a say in what the definition is. You accept that I have proven my point in relation to a deity defined in one particular way, but consider the definition inadequate.

I cannot sensibly proceed to establish that the probability of there existing a deity is infitecimally small in these circumstances until we have agreed an exact definition of a deity.

May I propose some basic concepts that theists in previous debates have suggested to me are inherent properties of a deity? I shall list them below. I do not claim at this stage that this list is exhaustive or definitive.

1. A deity is necessary for any life to be capable of existing.
2. A deity is necessary for the universe to exist in its present state.
3. A deity is sentient.
4. A deity is omnipotent.
5. A deity is omniscient (sp?)
6. A deity has value.
7. A deity has no physical form (does not consist of matter or energy, nor exists in any given piece of space or time) but can and does influence the physical.

Do you agree to all of these things?

0 Replies

satt_focusable wrote:

An interlude:

Suppose deity exists, first, then continue with giving "ingredients" as you like without inconsistency. You will find the deity is the reality.

You are assuming that a deity is capable of being defined without inconsistency. I am not at this stage willing to agree to that, especially given that a claim about the existance of a deity is essentially a claim about the nature of the universe, and therefore, effectively, that any claim about a deity must be consistent with any claim about the universe in general.

To define a deity is to define the universe.

0 Replies

jamespetts..
I did not talk about defining deity, god forbid, but about endowing deity with properties devoid of inconsistency under the background of supposed existence of deity.

You talk about the universe under the supposition of the existence of the universe, probably without doubt. Or otherwise? If one can assume the existence of the universe one can suppose the existence of deity naturally.

0 Replies

satt_focusable wrote:

jamespetts..
I did not talk about defining deity, god forbid, but about endowing deity with properties devoid of inconsistency under the background of supposed existence of diety.

In what sense is this different to defining it? And what use is starting from a disputed premise?

Quote:

You talk about the universe under the supposition of the existence of the universe, probably without doubt. Or otherwise? If one can assume the existence of the universe one can suppose the existence of deity naturally.

One does not "assume" the existance of the universe; the term "The Universe" means everything that exists, so the universe exists by definition, not by assumption.

0 Replies

Quote:

May I propose some basic concepts that theists in previous debates have suggested to me are inherent properties of a deity? I shall list them below. I do not claim at this stage that this list is exhaustive or definitive.

1. A deity is necessary for any life to be capable of existing.
2. A deity is necessary for the universe to exist in its present state.
3. A deity is sentient.
4. A deity is omnipotent.
5. A deity is omniscient (sp?)
6. A deity has value.
7. A deity has no physical form (does not consist of matter or energy, nor exists in any given piece of space or time) but can and does influence the physical.

Do you agree to all of these things?

Absolutely not!

Let me take them individually.

Numbers 1 & 2: "A deity is necessary for any life to be capable of existing." and "A deity is necessary for the universe to exist in its present state."

COMMENTS:

These two are absurd.

We both agreed earlier that no intelligent, logical person would agree that #1 and #2 are "inherent" to a deity. You may be correct that there are some theists around who think that #1 & #2 are essential to the definition of a deity -- but I suspect the number feeling that way is minimal - and that the population is not an especially intelligent group.

As I said earlier, I have been debating these issues in a variety of media for over 35 years -- and I have never once come upon a theist with enough intelligence to engage in debate who has ever asserted either proposition.

QUESTION:

Can you suggest any place that I can find such a proposition in writing from a theist posting in any medium available?

Can you point to any theistic scholar, living or dead, who asserts such a proposition?

Mind you, James, I am not saying there are none -- but I would certainly like to see something that suggests this supposed requirement of a deity actually is proposed by someone other than you -- and that the "someone other than you", is a theist, not an atheist proposing something absurd against which he/she can argue. The purpose of my wanting to see it is that I want to look at the notion in context.

If this happens to be something asserted by just a few people you've managed to engage in debate -- but who are not representative of theism in general, I think we can simply dismiss items #1 and #2 on your list for the absurdities they are.

Number 3: "A deity is sentient."

I will leave this for now and get back to you on this item.

Number 4 & 5: "A deity is omnipotent." and "A deity is omniscient."

No. Not a requirement of a deity at all.

I understand that the Judeo-Christian god supposedly is Omni-a bunch of things -- and that is one of the reasons why I SUSPECT that god does not exist. But it is entirely possible to suppose a deity that not only is NOT omnipotent, omnipresent, omnificent, or omni-anything else -- it is also possible to suppose a deity that is a fvck-up -- a god learning to be a god through trial and error -- a god that does not get things right all the time.

I can tell you that the theist (a very devoted theist) that Terry and I have been debating over in Abuzz for the last two years proposes such a deity.

To suppose that a deity has to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omnificent, or any other omni -- is illogical. There is absolutely nothing in the Deity Manual that requires any such traits.

Number 6: "A deity has value."

I'll leave this and get back to you when I get back to you on #3.

Number 7: "A deity has no physical form (does not consist of matter or energy, nor exists in any given piece of space or time) but can and does influence the physical."

COMMENT:

No way!

Many deities have had physical forms. Surely the Pharaohs had physical form. Hirohito had a physical form. Jesus had a physical form. Zeus had a physical form.

You may argue that they are not truly deities - but there is nothing that supposes there is a deity - and the deity gets Its kicks by walking among us in human form.

One could also argue that there is a deity - and that all of us are merely manifestations of that deity - using its mind as our own, so to speak.

As for "nor exists in any given piece of space or time" -- the god currently popular in the west not only exists in ANY given piece of space or time -- it supposedly exists in every bit of space and time.

Why would you argue that it cannot have a physical form?

And why would you argue that a deity "can and does influence the physical." If there is a deity, why is it impossible for the deity to simply not want to influence the physical - and as a result not do so?

******

I do want to consider items #3 and #6 a bit more before responding to them. In the meantime...

...if I may, I would like to propose one possible trait for your consideration.

A deity may be so complex, no human currently alive may be able to describe what traits it might or might not possess -- or may or may not possess.

You may look at that suggested consideration in this light:

One could not explain to an ant -- or to the community of ant-ness -- that there is more to the world than just the yard in which the ants live. The idea of other yards would be unfathomable to an ant. The idea of many, many other yards would even more unfathomable. The idea of other yards in other towns; the idea of other yards as far away as other countries would be even more than unfathomable.

To suppose they could understand about the planet Earth -- the solar system -- the Milky Way galaxy - the near family of galaxies -- the mega galaxy group to which we belong -- or the cosmos with all the other galaxies -- would be unimaginable.

75 years ago we humans didn't even know that galaxies existed. We thought the universe was the grouping of stars we see in the sky -- and that the galactic smudges were "nebulae" in that universe.

A deity -- to the human mind -- may be analogous to the most distant galaxy Hubbell has discovered to an ant.

James, I am looking forward to your considerations of this new possible property of a deity -- and to your successful defense of material which will establish that the probability of the existence of any deity is infinitesimally small.

0 Replies

Everything we are capable of understanding our universe exists. Anything beyond that is pure conjecture. c.i.

0 Replies

Now you are being contradictory. Earlier, you said that you were content to debate the Judeo-Christian god, and now you are not so content, and have not given any reason for the inconsistency.

This debate cannot proceed in a meaningful way unless (a) you define the minimum content of a deity exhaustively (something which, conceptually, you must be capable of doing if you are capable of understanding the word "deity"), or (b) you let me define it as I choose. To argue over the definition of something that we both agree probably doesn't exist is a waste of everbody's time.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Numbers 1 & 2: "A deity is necessary for any life to be capable of existing." and "A deity is necessary for the universe to exist in its present state."

COMMENTS:

These two are absurd.

As ever, that's exactly the point. The whole purpose of this thread was to show that it is absurd to contend that a deity exists. More than one person has made one or both of these contentions in debate on the subject.

Quote:

We both agreed earlier that no intelligent, logical person would agree that #1 and #2 are "inherent" to a deity. You may be correct that there are some theists around who think that #1 & #2 are essential to the definition of a deity -- but I suspect the number feeling that way is minimal - and that the population is not an especially intelligent group.

I agreed nothing of the sort. We did not address this question. The point that I made earlier was that some define a deity as something necessary before anything can exist, not just life, or not the way that things exist as they are presently. I have trouble imagining an adult mind that cannot distinguish those concepts.

Quote:

As I said earlier, I have been debating these issues in a variety of media for over 35 years -- and I have never once come upon a theist with enough intelligence to engage in debate who has ever asserted either proposition.

Whether theists have enough intelligence to engage in debate is another matter, but people have made these propositions to me - that is why I included them.

Quote:

QUESTION:

Can you suggest any place that I can find such a proposition in writing from a theist posting in any medium available?

Can you point to any theistic scholar, living or dead, who asserts such a proposition?

No. I have given you repeated opportunities to define "deity" yourself. That opportunity is still open. If you have any issue with my definition, you are free, indeed invited very strongly, to define your own.

Quote:

Mind you, James, I am not saying there are none -- but I would certainly like to see something that suggests this supposed requirement of a deity actually is proposed by someone other than you -- and that the "someone other than you", is a theist, not an atheist proposing something absurd against which he/she can argue. The purpose of my wanting to see it is that I want to look at the notion in context.

If this happens to be something asserted by just a few people you've managed to engage in debate -- but who are not representative of theism in general, I think we can simply dismiss items #1 and #2 on your list for the absurdities they are.

You may think this absurd, and probably rightly so, but are points 1 and 2 not necessarily inherent in the theory of creationism?

Quote:

Number 4 & 5: "A deity is omnipotent." and "A deity is omniscient."

No. Not a requirement of a deity at all.

I understand that the Judeo-Christian god supposedly is Omni-a bunch of things -- and that is one of the reasons why I SUSPECT that god does not exist. But it is entirely possible to suppose a deity that not only is NOT omnipotent, omnipresent, omnificent, or omni-anything else -- it is also possible to suppose a deity that is a fvck-up -- a god learning to be a god through trial and error -- a god that does not get things right all the time.

We agreed above that, because you were unwilling to define the minimum content of a deity for unspecified reasons, we should deal with the Judeo-Christian god. Why you are now complaning when I raise its characteristics is utterly incomprehsnsible.

Quote:

I can tell you that the theist (a very devoted theist) that Terry and I have been debating over in Abuzz for the last two years proposes such a deity.

Maybe you should get him to post on this thread... he sounds like just the sort of person that I wanted to engage in the first place.

Quote:

To suppose that a deity has to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omnificent, or any other omni -- is illogical. There is absolutely nothing in the Deity Manual that requires any such traits.

Maybe if you could send me a copy of the Deity Manual, all of this unnecessary discussion would be short-circuited and we could get down to the real business.

Quote:

Number 7: "A deity has no physical form (does not consist of matter or energy, nor exists in any given piece of space or time) but can and does influence the physical."

COMMENT:

No way!

Many deities have had physical forms. Surely the Pharaohs had physical form. Hirohito had a physical form. Jesus had a physical form. Zeus had a physical form.

Again, this is a proposition that has been made to me during debates and your examples are of deities that we agreed to exclude for the time being.

Quote:

You may argue that they are not truly deities - but there is nothing that supposes there is a deity - and the deity gets Its kicks by walking among us in human form.

Would that not depend on how it was defined?

Quote:

One could also argue that there is a deity - and that all of us are merely manifestations of that deity - using its mind as our own, so to speak.

One would have to provide a lot more detail than that for that to make any sense. What precice mechanism would the manifestation involve? What exactly would be the connection between human minds and this deity? In what sense would the deity exist?

Quote:

As for "nor exists in any given piece of space or time" -- the god currently popular in the west not only exists in ANY given piece of space or time -- it supposedly exists in every bit of space and time.

Why would you argue that it cannot have a physical form?

I noted that I had seen it defined as not having a physical form, not being incapable of having a physical form. Capacity is not relevent to the argument that I seek to advance on the point.

Quote:

And why would you argue that a deity "can and does influence the physical." If there is a deity, why is it impossible for the deity to simply not want to influence the physical - and as a result not do so?

Again, many to whom I spoke made this proposition. However, I agree that "and does" does not add anything to "can" for these purposes.

Quote:

A deity may be so complex, no human currently alive may be able to describe what traits it might or might not possess -- or may or may not possess.

You are supposing that complexity alone is capable of creating the particular types of limitation of comprehension that you are suggesting. I disagree with that contention.

You have advanced no basis upon which to contend that complexity alone can render somehting invisible as well as incomprehensible.

The human brain is an example of an object far too complex for humans to understand fully, and yet it is capable of definition. Its existance can be confirmed, as can the rudiments of its functions. Approximately how it works can be ascertained at least in some respects, although the details still elude humankind.

Complexity alone as a reason for lack of understanding is not consistent with a supposed entity for which no evidence as to its existance exists.

Quote:

You may look at that suggested consideration in this light:

One could not explain to an ant -- or to the community of ant-ness -- that there is more to the world than just the yard in which the ants live. The idea of other yards would be unfathomable to an ant. The idea of many, many other yards would even more unfathomable. The idea of other yards in other towns; the idea of other yards as far away as other countries would be even more than unfathomable.

To suppose they could understand about the planet Earth -- the solar system -- the Milky Way galaxy - the near family of galaxies -- the mega galaxy group to which we belong -- or the cosmos with all the other galaxies -- would be unimaginable.

75 years ago we humans didn't even know that galaxies existed. We thought the universe was the grouping of stars we see in the sky -- and that the galactic smudges were "nebulae" in that universe.

A deity -- to the human mind -- may be analogous to the most distant galaxy Hubbell has discovered to an ant.

One could also equally not explain to an ant that its yard is the only one in existance. As far as anyone knows, ants are not capable of defining concepts of any sort, and their brains do no more than balance different stimuli and respond to instinctive patterns of behaviour. They are incapable, as far as anyone knows, of comprehending anything.

In any event, the only point that you make is as to quantity, not as to quality; the point is made in relation to whether or not humans (or ants) know how much more of the same is out there, not what exactly that same is.

I suggest that the ability to comprehens and process concepts and deal in logic means that humans can understand at least something about anything.

Quote:

James, I am looking forward to your considerations of this new possible property of a deity -- and to your successful defense of material which will establish that the probability of the existence of any deity is infinitesimally small.

Again, you have not addressed my questions in relation to the "ultimate questions" topic, which you seemed clear in an earlier post that you were prepared to deal with. Again, you have provided no justification for failing so to do, and again I cannot imagine that there could possibly be one.

I have explained repeatedly exaclty why the "ultimate questions" topic deserves equal debate time to the "infitecimal probability" point, and you have repeatedly ignored the references. Why is this?

0 Replies

James

You are a big mouth pretending you can do something you cannot do. And you are a disappointment.

I'll stick around and add something from time to time, but you are playing a silly game here -- and anyone paying you too much attention is just wasting his or her time.

If ever you get around to actually providing any evidence that backs up your contention that you can show "the possibility of a deity is infinitesimally small" I'll be here to see it.

But I won't hold my breath, because my guess is you cannot do it -- and I suspect you will never even attempt to do it.

You are looking to sucker in a few theists so that you can point out the weaknesses in their arguments - while avoiding actually dealing with the weaknesses in yours.

Have fun.

But no one with any real intelligence is going to play the game the way you are attempting to structure it -- at least not for very long.

In the meantime, we've gone through 10 pages of A2K and hours and hours of discussion and arguing -- and you have not shown even an iota of evidence that any of your major contentions are sustainable.

Hope the weather is pleasant in London, James - if in fact you are in London and if in fact you are English. One can't really tell on the Internet, can one?

0 Replies

Why are you refusing to engage here? What exactly is your issue with the way in which I debate? If you have a complaint, it is only proper to spell it out in full.

I repeatedly have asked you what your issue is with the way in which I am debating, and you have repeatedly failed to answer.

Why do you say that I am "playing a silly game"? What exactly about what I have posted is silly?

And you put in your posts again and again that you do not think that I can establish my point, and yet you have not even attempted to establish yours in relation to "ultimate questions", whereas we have spent a considerable amount of time attempting to establish a framework within which I can substantiate my contention.

You say that you do not think that I can substantiate it, and yet when we embark upon discussions aimed at setting up enough common ground to enable me to embark upon such a thing, you pull out and refuse to engage.

I am especially concerned about your opening remarks, which are in clear violation of this site's rules; I consider them to be extremely serious misconduct and I cannot imagine why you should choose to behave in such an inappropriate way.

0 Replies

James, I DID define a "deity." Here it is again:

Quote:

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.

Since I am now arguing the theist position, in particular the existence of the God of the Bible, I will be more specific:

God is the creator of the universe and all life within it. God is wise but not omniscient, powerful but not omnipotent, and can be physically present on earth and in the heavens, but is not omnipresent. God is superior to all human beings and requires devotion and obedience to his laws. He cares about us, communicates with some people, punishes disobedience, performs miracles and answers prayers when he is moved to do so.

God is on record as having been seen personally by respected men and communicated with many others in various ways. He has intervened supernaturally in human events. His son lived on earth about 2000 years ago, performed many miracles, and changed the world with his ideas. About 1/3 of the people on earth believe in the God of Abraham and/or Jesus, some so devoutly that they are willing to die for their beliefs.

0 Replies

I don't have a lot of time to spend here, so I tend to skim over arguments about how to argue and who did what wrong. Could you guys possibly post anything of substance that you have to say in green (or a color of your choice) so that I can pick them out and respond to them without wading through the mire? Thanks. Smile

James, re your list of inherent properties of a deity, I agree with 1,2,3, and 7.

It is not necessary for a deity to be omnipotent or omniscient. It must have some supernatural power and wisdom, but we cannot quantify its capabilities without more data.

A deity is a spiritual being, but may possess a human body or create a physical form for itself. It may choose to focus itself on a particular location at times. Even when it takes no physical form, it probably uses energy in some form. It may exist and/or interact in more dimensions than we are capable of perceiving.

Re Ultimate Questions, ultimate questions are those about the meaning of life and the purpose of human existence, including the purpose for which we were created by God and what God expects of us. I do not understand why you two are arguing about the definition of the words instead of trying to answer the questions. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Terry

I am not arguing aabout the definition of the words. I gave a reasonable explanation of what I meant by my use of the words Ultimate Questions.

I question why you agree wtih items #1 and #2 on James' list. They are absurd.

Are you actually saying that a deity is necessary for any life to be capable of existing? Are you actually saying that a deity is necessary for the universe to exist in its present state?"

Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, nor the Pope would agree to that!

Are you sure you take that position -- even in this devil's advocate stance you are taking?

By the way, I understand that you can defeat James' arguments on that issue -- but even though you can -- do you really think the stand you are taking is defendable?

0 Replies

Does there exist a deity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know