I say god is dead...

selfruled wrote:

hephzibah wrote:
Quote:
If anything at least one of you guys has had to adjust his seat a little bit...

Not even slightly selfruled... How can anyone need to adjust anything if there is really no substance to what you are saying? If you aren't willing to support the assertions you are making? People get bored with that kind of stuff really quick around here. You've got to be willing to back up what you say... and if you can't well... it's best to just keep your mouth shut. You might be surprised at how many people come in here galavanting around with thes ignorant idea's and proposals, yet when asked to back them up they leave crying. People don't take to kindly to ignorance around here. Well... what they perceive as ignorance anyway.

You don't seem like someone who is offended easily so that's a bonus. However, just a word of advice here... you best start supporting your agruements... trust me... I won't come down real hard on you or tell you I think you are ignorant (even if I do think it, which happens occasionally with some people) but that's just me. I try to treat people the way I want to be treated. But you know, it's the way of a debate forum... you back up what you say or you get hung in the gallows... LOL

P.S. I'm a girl.

Right!

So after the initial fuss and all the flares and all the chickens running back and forth I offered this:

"If gods really existed it wouldn't be necessary to prove their existence".

So far nobody has replied to that statement; maybe those gallows have been filled to capacity after all. :wink:

I'll reply to it. So, if it wouldn't be necessary to prove their existence, just how would you know they really existed? Hmmm, faith maybe?

0 Replies

Well, well, well. 11 pages following my last post. You guys have been busy.

selfruled wrote:

Naj:

I understand perfectly what you're saying.

I call it "agnostic insurance". That way in the "afterlife" you'll be able to say should there was a god after all:

"See? I didn't commit blasphemy; therefore you can't send me to no fiery hell". :wink:

Heh. You make it sound if this is your very own insight, and no one has had it before. Yes, I'm an agnost. I am however not an agnost because I need an 'insurance' on an afterlife. If there is such a thing as an afterlife and a god presiding over it, I sincerely doubt he will be swayed by the argument: "But I didn't say you don't exist!"
And this proves that you haven't really bothered to read my post at all.

0 Replies

Your claim : that god is dead.

Your first argument :
1. If any god existed there would be no need to prove otherwise.

And why is that? You think the moment you claim something might not exist it will do it's utmost best to prove it's existence to you?
You think if god exists, he would descent from the heavens above surrounded by a halo of light and a choir of angels and ring your doorbell with a sign that says: I do exist, see?

The argument is empty, the term god could be swapped with any other term. I could say the same about purple swans or the illegitimate love child of the abominable snowman and the gorgon Medusa.

A god by definition is more then a man. Since we cannot imagine what a god would be like, how can we make claims about his existence because we don't see any of his actions? "God works in mysterious ways." And that is even giving him the benefit of the doubt that he even cares about what we do and believe over here.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Selfruled, the reason you are angering Frank is that he is gripped by a profound ambivalence. He half believes in God and he half agrees with us atheist. It really hurts sitting up on the 50-50 fence. His most profound philosophical term is "shyt."

If we assume that Frank places equal merit on the existence or nonexistence of god, I suggest he cannot do this unless or until he provides an accurate definition of god, as without an accurate definition, how can he place equal merit on the existence or non existence of god?

For example, if I claim that there is equal merit for the existence or nonexistence of "#4FDs$%%" what does this mean? Nothing!

Thus unless or until "#4FDs$%%" can reasonably be defined, the sentence is meaningless, and as such, so is an assertion that there is equal merit for the existence or nonexistence of god.

0 Replies

najmelliw wrote:

Since we cannot imagine what a god would be like.........

1) Clarke's Third Law:. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

2) I will argue that magic is indistinguishable from god (by that I mean in essence the supernatural is indistinguishable).

3) Thus you are claiming I cannot imagine a sufficiently advanced technology.

4) I disagree I cannot imagine a sufficiently advanced technology.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Selfruled, the reason you are angering Frank is that he is gripped by a profound ambivalence. He half believes in God and he half agrees with us atheist. It really hurts sitting up on the 50-50 fence. His most profound philosophical term is "shyt."

If we assume that Frank places equal merit on the existence or nonexistence of god, I suggest he cannot do this unless or until he provides an accurate definition of god, as without an accurate definition, how can he place equal merit on the existence or non existence of god?

For example, if I claim that there is equal merit for the existence or nonexistence of "#4FDs$%%" what does this mean? Nothing unless or until I provide an accurate definition of "#4FDs$%%". Thus unless or until "#4FDs$%%" can reasonably be defined, the sentence is meaningless, and as such, so is an assertion as to the equal merits for the existence or nonexistence of god.

0 Replies

So...Dork...you have asserted that there are no gods...

...and so far, the best you can do in support of that assertion is:

Quote:

"1. If any god existed there would be no need to prove otherwise."

And you are strutting and preening as though you have made a profound entrance into this forum with that thought!

Wow!

The other kids in school must be very impressed!

Look...Dork...

...if you are going to make an assertion...

...the obligation to substantiate the assertion does accrue to you.

You do not meet that obligation by simply making another a unsubstantiated assertion...which is all "If any god existed there would be no need to prove otherwise"...is.

(Not only is that latter assertion an unsubstantiated assertion, Dork, it is also an illogical one. It simply is not true as stated...and it certainly is not true in the more general form it would take if it had been written by a non=dork.)

I am waiting for you to present evidence for your assertion that there are no gods.

I am beginning to suspect you never will.

But I do thank you for the entertainment you are providing. You are the two dorks, Dumb and Dumber, rolled into one...and your strutting and self-congratulations in the face of that...are absolutely hilarious!

You oughta do stand-up.

Twisted Evil

0 Replies

selfruled wrote:

"Why do people believe in this Santa-like myth"

Naaahhh... it wouldn't have sold.

Hmm, that got me thinking.
Christmas is a time where people go out and buy presents for friends and relatives.
Religion controls people and makes money out of peoples fears..

Its all about business and making money.

0 Replies

Chumly. Sufficiently advanced technology may be like magic, but there is a big diff between the two neverhteless.
Magic cannot be seen or touched. Someone does something and produces an effect other did not imagine was possible. Tehcnology of any kind operates with devices. A savage seeing a gun for the first time would think it was magic too. But he DOES see someone pointing some sort of long tube like device at the victim and then pulling on some strange little lever thing. God, and magic, if either exists, do not work with such visible items.
And your point two needs arguments. Claiming that magic is indistinguishable from god may be true, but is most definitely not a certainty. Just because something is seen as supernatural today, does not mean it will still seem that way tomorrow.

0 Replies

najmelliw wrote:

Your claim : that god is dead.

Your first argument :
1. If any god existed there would be no need to prove otherwise.

It's NOT an argument...it is a bumper sticker a dork might mistake for an argument!

0 Replies

Hello pops and all:

I'll continue this conversation here:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=79690

Thanks. :wink:

0 Replies

najmelliw wrote:

Chumly. Sufficiently advanced technology may be like magic, but there is a big diff between the two neverhteless.

Not to the observer in question:
a) if they cannot discern the deference
b) by the definition of magic

Magic cannot be seen or touched. Someone does something and produces an effect other did not imagine was possible. Technology of any kind operates with devices. A savage seeing a gun for the first time would think it was magic too. But he DOES see someone pointing some sort of long tube like device at the victim and then pulling on some strange little lever thing. God, and magic, if either exists, do not work with such visible items.
And your point two needs arguments. Claiming that magic is indistinguishable from god may be true, but is most definitely not a certainty. Just because something is seen as supernatural today, does not mean it will still seem that way tomorrow.

You would have to argue that the action and process of all technologies present and potential are apparent and discernable to our present human senses and also that they are understandable but that is not the case.

Further you need to remember neither Clarke nor I said anything about whether our present human perceptions "will still seem that way tomorrow" nor does it from any apart of my or Clarke views in this case.

In fact there are present technologies (let alone future technologies) that are neither apparent or discernable to our present human senses let alone whether they are truly understandable to our present human abilities.

I invite you to delineate atomic / subatomic / quantum technologies using your present human senses and understandings.

0 Replies

Hi Chumly. Good to see you back.

0 Replies

Hi Neo,
Nice to see you too, I thought this thread could use a wry techno edge!

Hi Najmelliw,
If you decide to respond could you use my post below and not my post above as I am in a rush (preparing for another alien (US) holiday excursion) and did not get it quite right the first time and messed up the editing etc sorry about that!

najmelliw wrote:

Chumly. Sufficiently advanced technology may be like magic, but there is a big diff between the two neverhteless.
Magic cannot be seen or touched. Someone does something and produces an effect other did not imagine was possible. Tehcnology of any kind operates with devices. A savage seeing a gun for the first time would think it was magic too. But he DOES see someone pointing some sort of long tube like device at the victim and then pulling on some strange little lever thing. God, and magic, if either exists, do not work with such visible items.
And your point two needs arguments. Claiming that magic is indistinguishable from god may be true, but is most definitely not a certainty. Just because something is seen as supernatural today, does not mean it will still seem that way tomorrow.

You would have to argue that the action and process of all technologies present and potential are apparent and discernable to our present human senses and also that they are understandable within our present human abilities, but that is not the case.

Further you need to remember neither Clarke nor I said anything about whether our present human perceptions and our present human abilities "will still seem that way tomorrow", understand that position does not form a part of my or Clarke's views in the case at hand.

In fact there are present technologies (let alone future technologies) that are neither apparent or discernable to our present human senses let alone if they are understandable within our present human abilities.

Just for fun, and as a very modest counter (as I am not even using the whole thrust of the argument) I invite you to delineate atomic / subatomic / quantum technologies using your present human senses and understandings.

You can throw in electromagnetism too (for a lark) if you're feeling inclined.

Remember here, I am at the moment purposefully hobbling my position by not referring to "sufficiently advanced technology" per se (as per Clarke's Third Law:. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.") but only to present day technology, and yet the positions I aver still have merit, yipes scary stuff!

Chumly wrote:

najmelliw wrote:
Since we cannot imagine what a god would be like.........
1) Clarke's Third Law:. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

2) I will argue that magic is indistinguishable from god (by that I mean in essence the supernatural is indistinguishable).

3) Thus you are claiming I cannot imagine a sufficiently advanced technology.

4) I disagree I cannot imagine a sufficiently advanced technology.

Remember please my real point is #4 not #1 & #2, not that I mind dialogue on #1 & #2, but it stalls out my nice smooth 4 point thingy!

0 Replies

The really cheap shot, Chumly, to your #4 point, would be that if you can imagine it, it may not be sufficiently advanced yet. Smile

0 Replies

Chumly, I take your point, i.e., that "...unless or until "#4FDs$%%" can reasonably be defined, the sentence is meaningless, and as such, so is an assertion that there is equal merit for the existence or nonexistence of god." This is why I cannot understand either Frank's agnostic position that God may exist or the "aggressive" atheist's position that "God" definitely does not exist. Without some definition of God, the issue is without meaning. That's why I'm a "passive" atheist: I turn away from the matter of God for its lack of meaning.
Frank, on the other hand, finds it meaningful and can't find "unambiguous evidence" for or against the existence of this meaningful (but undefined) entity called God.
Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Chumly, I take your point, i.e., that "...unless or until "#4FDs$%%" can reasonably be defined, the sentence is meaningless, and as such, so is an assertion that there is equal merit for the existence or nonexistence of god." This is why I cannot understand either Frank's agnostic position that God may exist or the "aggressive" atheist's position that "God" definitely does not exist. Without some definition of God, the issue is without meaning. That's why I'm a "passive" atheist: I turn away from the matter of God for its lack of meaning.
Frank, on the other hand, finds it meaningful and can't find "unambiguous evidence" for or against the existence of this meaningful (but undefined) entity called God.

Get off it, will ya, JL.

When I argue with theists...I normally do use the term "god."

When I am arguing with atheists...I almost always phrase my comments using a form of "you claim there are no gods."

Open your mind (admittedly not an easy thing for you to do)...and you will see that the problem you are pretending exists...really doesn't in any substantive form.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Hi Neo,
Nice to see you too, I thought this thread could use a wry techno edge!

Hi Najmelliw,
If you decide to respond could you use my post below and not my post above as I am in a rush (preparing for another alien (US) holiday excursion) and did not get it quite right the first time and messed up the editing etc sorry about that!
najmelliw wrote:
Chumly. Sufficiently advanced technology may be like magic, but there is a big diff between the two neverhteless.
Magic cannot be seen or touched. Someone does something and produces an effect other did not imagine was possible. Tehcnology of any kind operates with devices. A savage seeing a gun for the first time would think it was magic too. But he DOES see someone pointing some sort of long tube like device at the victim and then pulling on some strange little lever thing. God, and magic, if either exists, do not work with such visible items.
And your point two needs arguments. Claiming that magic is indistinguishable from god may be true, but is most definitely not a certainty. Just because something is seen as supernatural today, does not mean it will still seem that way tomorrow.

You would have to argue that the action and process of all technologies present and potential are apparent and discernable to our present human senses and also that they are understandable within our present human abilities, but that is not the case.

Hmm. Well, let's see. In my example, the savage observes the man shooting the gun. He sees (I think) what I describe. He does not understand the process nor the action, although he might be able to guess that last part. Nevertheless, his observations of the device and the man behind him give him some data regarding what happened. This data is lacking when we are talking about god.
Just because we cannot understand the 'action and process of all technologies present and potential' does not automatically lead to the conclusion we will label them as supernatural. Not the modern man who has already seen the incredible potence of technology. If such was the case, this thread would probably never have started. Smile

Chumly wrote:

Further you need to remember neither Clarke nor I said anything about whether our present human perceptions and our present human abilities "will still seem that way tomorrow", understand that position does not form a part of my or Clarke's views in the case at hand.

In fact there are present technologies (let alone future technologies) that are neither apparent or discernable to our present human senses let alone if they are understandable within our present human abilities.

Just for fun, and as a very modest counter (as I am not even using the whole thrust of the argument) I invite you to delineate atomic / subatomic / quantum technologies using your present human senses and understandings.

I'm not arrogant enough to try this, Chumly. In fact, I'm a very poor scientist, which is why I never, or hardly ever, post in science threads.
But I don't need to. We are talking about technologies that are discernable to our present human perceptions and understandable to our present human abilities. All that I would need to do is find someone who CAN delineate the above technologies, and prove that (s)he is human.

Chumly wrote:

You can throw in electromagnetism too (for a lark) if you're feeling inclined.

Remember here, I am at the moment purposefully hobbling my position by not referring to "sufficiently advanced technology" per se (as per Clarke's Third Law:. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.") but only to present day technology, and yet the positions I aver still have merit, yipes scary stuff!

Perhaps you can delineate thenm for me? When you have time again?

The proof below is nice, of course. It is, and I like sci-fi enough to like them. But you quote a law, then insert your own argument as a supposition. Then you do a simple substitution and find you disagree with my 'now modified' statement.

Anyways, comparing god with 'sufficiently advanced technology' is a fair indication yo agree with post 1 of the thread Very Happy

Chumly wrote:

najmelliw wrote:
Since we cannot imagine what a god would be like.........
1) Clarke's Third Law:. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

2) I will argue that magic is indistinguishable from god (by that I mean in essence the supernatural is indistinguishable).

3) Thus you are claiming I cannot imagine a sufficiently advanced technology.

4) I disagree I cannot imagine a sufficiently advanced technology.

Remember please my real point is #4 not #1 & #2, not that I mind dialogue on #1 & #2, but it stalls out my nice smooth 4 point thingy![/quote]

0 Replies

najmelliw wrote:

The really cheap shot, Chumly, to your #4 point, would be that if you can imagine it, it may not be sufficiently advanced yet.

Now that is funny! I almost sneezed out my beverage! Thanks for your longer following post too.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Chumly, I take your point, i.e., that "...unless or until "#4FDs$%%" can reasonably be defined, the sentence is meaningless, and as such, so is an assertion that there is equal merit for the existence or nonexistence of god." This is why I cannot understand either Frank's agnostic position that God may exist or the "aggressive" atheist's position that "God" definitely does not exist. Without some definition of God, the issue is without meaning. That's why I'm a "passive" atheist: I turn away from the matter of God for its lack of meaning.
Frank, on the other hand, finds it meaningful and can't find "unambiguous evidence" for or against the existence of this meaningful (but undefined) entity called God.

Yup, and I appreciate the humor of it.

0 Replies

I say god is dead...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know