Bad Chihuahua! (An Inability To Separate God From Religion)

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't come up with any definitions. They are what they have been for hundreds of years. But people will use language to deliberately confuse and obscure the truth as much as they will use it to clarify and illuminate the truth. And our dictionaries record all this deliberate obfuscation. So we need to follow and explain the logic of the words we use and not the tales being spun if we really want to understand something. I have explained many times on this thread what the terms mean and why that's what they mean. And no one so far has managed to come up with any logical reasons why these definitions shouldn't stand that weren't just their own personal bias.

So the logical definitions stand, and the whiners keep whining about it. But they aren't offering any logical rebuttal. So I'm ignoring them.

I gave you the dictionary definition of the word.

It can refer to 2 things. So called soft atheism (mere non-belief of theistic claims) and hard atheism (belief that no gods / supernatural things exist).

You completely ignore the first and insist that atheism is ONLY the second.

All we can do is continue to point this out to you.
You call that "whining". So be it.

All you will accomplish with this mentality, is continue to be wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They very likely aren't atheists at all. They're just indifferent to the theist proposition. Indifference is not atheism. Neither is indecision. Atheism is a specific counter-position.

According to the english dictionary definition of the word, the above is false.

 

[PureX]

Well that's definitely not logical...by what logical argument is it necessarily supernatural because we don't (yet) a naturalistic explanation?

"Nature" is design. By logical necessity the source must transcend the result. Stop trying to argue, and think on it a minute, and it will become clear.

OK...but

...again, by what logical argument can it be established that a universe of constant change is not "an expression of perpetuity"? Indeed, it is very difficult to imagine "constant change" starting from "no change" - that's way more illogical to my mind.

Why would perpetuity express change? It would be self-contradicting. Why would perpetuity express anything but constancy?

Nope...that's basically a cosmological argument of the Thomas Aquinas/William Lane Craig variety...

1. whatever exists has a cause
2. there cannot be an infinite/eternal sequence of causes
3. therefore there must be a first cause which we call 'god'

I'm not talking about cause. I'm talking about source. Existence is the fulfillment of a set of possibilities within a set of impossibilities. And these allowed the manifestation of order, and complexity. So, what is the source of the possibility and the limitations? What is the source of the motivation for these to be fulfilled?

This is the real mystery of existence that logically must be asked.

OR

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause which call 'god'

But there is no logical reason to assume the second premise in either case...we simply don't know that the universe is not eternal.

You are trying to make an argument based on ignorance.

Existence exists. We have no idea how or why.
The universe exists within that mystery (as a part of it). And it is finite.
So ... the former appears to transcend in scope and power, the latter.
"God" is just a word we use to refer to that transcendence.
It's not that existence "caused" the universe, but rather that it is the source from within which the universe manifests.

Additionally, I could never see how replacing an eternal sequence of cause and effect with an eternal creator helps at all...from a purely logical viewpoint surely one is exactly as plausible/implausible as the other.

It's not about cause and effect. It's about source and fulfilled possibilities,

 

[Alien826]

Absolutely...that's what i was trying to say just now...how can change come from changelessness?

Right. To me, the problem lies in saying something like "god exists outside time and space" and thinking that something meaningful has been asserted. I've thought about these arguments a lot, and have decided that the best answer is "we don't know". And there's really no shame in admitting that.

 

[PureX]

Right. To me, the problem lies in saying something like "god exists outside time and space" and thinking that something meaningful has been asserted. I've thought about these arguments a lot, and have decided that the best answer is "we don't know". And there's really no shame in admitting that.

But there is more to it then that. Because we are programmed to seek. And we do that by imagining possibilities, and by surmising their validity via logical reasoning. And by testing their validity by 'acting as if'. It's who we are and what we do as dictated by the nature of existence, itself. How is that not meaningful to you?

 

[Alien826]

But there is more to it then that. Because we are programmed to seek. And we do that by imagining possibilities, and by surmising their validity via logical reasoning. And by testing their validity by 'acting as if'. It's who we are and what we do as dictated by the nature of existence, itself. How is that not meaningful to you?

All of the above, yes. My point is though that some things are so far beyond our ability to investigate, that we really aren't going to get anywhere so we might as well not waste our time. I mean, if I wanted to determine something in the physical world, no matter how unlikely, I could probably come up with some way of looking for the answer even accepting that I'd probably never find it. But how do I look "outside time and space"?

 

[siti]

"Nature" is design.

???!!!

By logical necessity the source must transcend the result.

What logical necessity - nature routinely takes molecules (proteins, amino acids...) and molds them into living organisms - a result that surely transcends their lifeless molecular source.

Stop trying to argue, and think on it a minute, and it will become clear.

Really!!

Why would perpetuity express change? It would be self-contradicting. Why would perpetuity express anything but constancy?

Panta rhei - everything around us is in constant flux - always changing, morphing, moving, associating and dissociating, amalgamating and dissipating...there is nothing constant in anything we have ever experienced and even when we peer back into the depths of time at the earliest epochs of the universe we can see that this has always been the case. We have zero experience of constancy. And if this "part" of "perpetuity" - the only "part" we have ever experienced is not constant in any way whatsoever, why on earth would we assume that any other "part" would be any different? Change is the ONLY constant.

So, what is the source of the possibility and the limitations? What is the source of the motivation for these to be fulfilled?

The universe.

You are trying to make an argument based on ignorance.

They are not my arguments.

Existence exists. We have no idea how or why.
The universe exists within that mystery (as a part of it). And it is finite.
So ... the former appears to transcend in scope and power, the latter.
"God" is just a word we use to refer to that transcendence.
It's not that existence "caused" the universe, but rather that it is the source from within which the universe manifests.

It's not about cause and effect. It's about source and fulfilled possibilities,

Sorry - who did you say was trying to make an argument based on ignorance?

We have no idea that anything other than "the universe exists"...that expression is the only logical part of your argument.

 

[siti]

But how do I look "outside time and space"?

That's why I decided to stop "looking" there...because if that's where god (if there is one) is, we'll never find "him".

If, on the other hand, 'god' (if there is one) is somehow 'hiding in plain sight' under the glare of the 'street lamp' of physical reality, then we might have a chance of getting a glimpse...and who knows what other interesting stuff we might find by searching there - even if it turns out that's not where 'god' is - or, heaven forbid, there is no 'god' after all?

 

[PureX]

???!!!

What logical necessity - nature routinely takes molecules (proteins, amino acids...) and molds them into living organisms - a result that surely transcends their lifeless molecular source.

"Nature" only does what is possible for it to do. What is possible and what is not possible are the design parameters controlling what "nature" does and does not do. And are therefor determining what exists and what doesn't within the iniverse. "Nature" is just the mechanism for the design. Those possibility parameters are the design. And so the big question is then what is the source of those possibility parameter? What it the impetus driving nature to act on them? And what is the purpose of it all?

Really!!

Panta rhei - everything around us is in constant flux - always changing, morphing, moving, associating and dissociating, amalgamating and dissipating...there is nothing constant in anything we have ever experienced and even when we peer back into the depths of time at the earliest epochs of the universe we can see that this has always been the case. We have zero experience of constancy. And if this "part" of "perpetuity" - the only "part" we have ever experienced is not constant in any way whatsoever, why on earth would we assume that any other "part" would be any different? Change is the ONLY constant.

No, it isn't. Change is constant, but so is order. Because without order noting can exist but chaos. If perpetuity is a factor, it can only be a factor from beyond the universe. But even then, why would it present a finite changing universe at all? It makes no logical sense.

The universe.

They are not my arguments.

Sorry - who did you say was trying to make an argument based on ignorance?

We have no idea that anything other than "the universe exists"...that expression is the only logical part of your argument.

If you would stop reading to fight, and read to understand, instead, you would be able to see things in a new way. I'm not here to fight with you. I don't care if you don't want to understand. That's not my responsibility to correct.

 

[PureX]

All of the above, yes. My point is though that some things are so far beyond our ability to investigate, that we really aren't going to get anywhere so we might as well not waste our time.

We have other means of inquiry besides science. We also have art and philosophy and even religion that can probe in ways that science cannot. And we are designed as a species to do that.

I mean, if I wanted to determine something in the physical world, no matter how unlikely, I could probably come up with some way of looking for the answer even accepting that I'd probably never find it. But how do I look "outside time and space"?

Imagination, logical reasoning, intuition, abstraction, metaphor, ... what you want is certainty. But as a human being we can't have that except through self-delusion. But that shouldn't stop us from looking.

 

[stvdv]

On another thread someone asked atheists why and how they became atheists. And nearly every response sited some unresolvable issue with religion, and/or with how some religion was defining God. The idea being that as the atheist rejected the God as it was defined by that religion, they rejected the idea of God all together.

And for some reason the irrationality of this thought process never seems to have crossed anyone's mind

Not so strange. I can understand that Religion drives honest people away IF the Religion belittles other Religions or Humanism etc., as they trample their "soul". That can't be right, and goes against any true Master's advice

 

[PureX]

Not so strange. I can understand that Religion drives honest people away IF the Religion belittles other Religions or Humanism etc., as they trample their "soul". That can't be right, and goes against any true Master's advice

All the more reason to recognize that religious depictions of God are not the truth of God. Rejecting religion is not logically equal to rejecting God.

 

[stvdv]

All the more reason to recognize that religious depictions of God are not the truth of God. Rejecting religion is not logically equal to rejecting God.

I think that a first step is "stop belittling other Faiths", only then they are ready to "recognize" and think "logical" on God related subjects

 

[PureX]

I think that a first step is "stop belittling other Faiths", only then they are ready to "recognize" and think "logical" on God related subjects

It's usually only segments of a religious group that do that. And they are usually doing it for their own political or economic gain. But humans are clannish, and competitive, and their religions will usually reflect this. Unfortunately.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Nature" only does what is possible for it to do. What is possible and what is not possible are the design parameters controlling what "nature" does and does not do. And are therefor determining what exists and what doesn't within the iniverse. "Nature" is just the mechanism for the design. Those possibility parameters are the design. And so the big question is then what is the source of those possibility parameter?

Nature *is* what defines these parameters.

What it the impetus driving nature to act on them? And what is the purpose of it all?

What makes you think there is, or should be, a purpose?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We have other means of inquiry besides science. We also have art and philosophy and even religion that can probe in ways that science cannot.

What's the methodology of those things and how can these be verified in terms of succes and obtaining accurate answers?

Imagination, logical reasoning, intuition, abstraction, metaphor,

Logical reasoning only works if you use known things as input. It by definition is not going to work when you don't even know what the input is.
Secondly, things like "imagination", "intution", "metaphor",... are not reliable ways to get to accurate answers. Especially not as it concerns unknowns in every sense of the word.

... what you want is certainty.

No. What I want is some type of verifiability. None of the "methods" you are suggesting has such.
Meaning, the results they produce are indistinguishable from sheer falsehoods.

But as a human being we can't have that except through self-delusion. But that shouldn't stop us from looking.

The point is that we can't properly look without proper methodology of how to look.

 

[Alien826]

We have other means of inquiry besides science. We also have art and philosophy and even religion that can probe in ways that science cannot. And we are designed as a species to do that.

Imagination, logical reasoning, intuition, abstraction, metaphor, ... what you want is certainty. But as a human being we can't have that except through self-delusion. But that shouldn't stop us from looking.

No, I don't want certainty. In fact, I'm with you up to a point in believing that absolute certainty is probably unattainable. I'll settle for a high probability.

But how can these things ever tell us anything of value when no information is available by which to measure our propositions? And that's the case, by definition, when we talk about "outside time and space". Take imagination as an example. With some amount of data, I can imagine lots of things that have some connection to reality. If I see a mammal with four legs, I can imagine one with five legs. That seems unlikely as an even number of limbs is the general standard, but it's not outside the bounds of possibility. But with no data at all?

Look, I actually would like some of these fantastical things to be true (the world would be a lot less "ordinary"), so I have some sympathy with your point of view, but so far you have failed to show me how these methods (imagination, logical reasoning ....) can lead anywhere when there is no starting point.

I'm about to write to @siti with an alternative approach, that may interest you.

 

[Alien826]

That's why I decided to stop "looking" there...because if that's where god (if there is one) is, we'll never find "him".

I agree.

If, on the other hand, 'god' (if there is one) is somehow 'hiding in plain sight' under the glare of the 'street lamp' of physical reality, then we might have a chance of getting a glimpse...and who knows what other interesting stuff we might find by searching there - even if it turns out that's not where 'god' is - or, heaven forbid, there is no 'god' after all?

A while back, having got sick and tired of all the philosophical musing about "god", I asked myself some questions.

What would it take for some such thing to be relevant to me? Answer, it would have to be significant to me here and now. Right now and on this planet. Where the universe came from is interesting, but of no real use to me. Finding a source of help and support in my daily life very much would be.

How could I determine if there was such a thing? Answer, attempt to contact it. It seemed obvious that a scientific approach was unlikely to succeed as it would be a less powerful creature investigating a more powerful one. In short, a god can hide from any attempts we might make to investigate it.

What did I do? I talked out loud (call it prayer if you like but that has too many assumptions for me to use the word), and simply asked "it" to reveal itself, in its own time and its own way. Something weird happened. I got an answer, not in words but in a major change to my life.

From that start I tried to progress in small steps, making no assumptions, just asking for answers. That led to my joining a Christian church, despite the fact that I never believed in most of the things that are part of Christianity. Luckily it was a very tolerant church and I even met some kindred souls there.

Then it all fell apart. A particular example made me question a basic assumption and I ended up back in atheist land, where I still am. I am now convinced that the human mind, if it wants something enough, will produce evidence for it.

 

[Dimi95]

That makes no sense.

I would try to explain with this answer

The difference is that @PureX not once, ever, said "ok, sorry we taught you believed it".
Instead, he doubles down on his misrepresentations every time.

So , he has different sets of definitions.
So what?

Atheism represents the position of people who don't belive in the existence of the supernatural dieties like God/s.
We get that and we accept that position.
It's oposite of what we as Theists belive.
But why you get so 'triggered' when 'belief system' is mentioned?

'A belief system is an ideology or set of principles that helps us to interpret our everyday reality.'

So How is this definition wrong? Is it neccessary for the word 'religion' to be in the definition?

My choices are my choices and they are not impacted by other people's strawmen.

Ofc , you decide what's best for you , but that was not my point.

My point was that you can't decide what 'belief system' means.You don't get to define the definitions.

The problem is that it misrepresents what my views actually are...

Ok , Personally I don't agree with everything he says , but why this constant persecution?

Sometimes i just read answers and i wonder why you all think that you have the role of persecutor here...
This describes basically what many of you are doing here like some sort of intellectual bullies , and how you refuse to accept other sets of definition which may have sense in some way.

There are certainly statements that cannot be proven to be true or false and there is mathematical proof of that in Godel's incompletness Theorem.

I posted a screenshot from the dictionary. These are not "my" criteria.

This was not a critic on your persona , you see how you get so defensive?

Do you take the english language serious as defined by english dictionaries?

I take every language serious , english is also there.

Que?

This reminds me of 'whataboutism'.

Using english words as defined by english dictionaries is an "argument from authority"?
What the heck...................................

Is this 'The Apeal to definition' ... ?

Do you know how words had different meaning through time?

What methods / methodology? What on earth are you babbling about?

So you understand how he misrepresents your views , but you don't understand how you misrepresent other people' views?

Are you sure that you don't understand my point?

 

[siti]

If you would stop reading to fight

OK lets get this out of the way first...

You have now twice accused me of not "reading to understand" but to "argue" or "fight"...and you also said:

You are trying to make an argument based on ignorance.

And in all of that you have not made any attempt to show logically where any of my statements have been wrong or made any attempt to defend your argument:

Existence exists. We have no idea how or why.
The universe exists within that mystery (as a part of it). And it is finite.
So ... the former appears to transcend in scope and power, the latter.
"God" is just a word we use to refer to that transcendence.

My point was that this is a "cosmological" argument...and like the two other versions of cosmological arguments I cited as examples, is, as you yourself pointed out, based on ignorance...basically they all end up with:

We don't know what the cause/source of existence/the universe is...so let's call the cause/source "God"

Yours is, in fact, logically more bereft than the two arguments I cited as examples because:

1. Your first premise "existence exists" is really nothing more than a restatement of Saint Anselm's "supreme existence" or the Thomist notion of "Being itself"...but the problem is, if it is not a mere tautology, it is circular in that the explanation (existence) contains the very thing (exists) it is meant to explain - which means it explains nothing at all.

Worse, if 'existence' is taken as a universal, then it cannot also be a particular - it is analogous to saying "redness is (itself) red" - it is obvious that redness does not make itself red - likewise with existence, how can existence make itself exist without first (i.e. being logically prior to) existing?

...and if 'existence' is not a 'universal' then in what way (philosophically, never mind in reality) does it bestow 'existence' on the particulars - such as planets and people etc?

As you say "we have no idea how or why" existence exists...it is indeed a mystery - an utterly insoluble mystery that makes it a very shaky foundation on which to base an argument...

The only possible solution is to claim that existence itself is self-existent...

...worse, again, it could equally be true that "existence doesn't exist" - i.e. nothing really exists (at least not in any sense that would make any sense to existing particulars like humans) - and the entire thing - existence itself and every existing thing it establishes the existence of is illusory...we have no way of proving that this is not the case.

2. "The universe exists"...OK - fine with that (with the same worse again corollary that it could be an illusion); "within that mystery" - the mystery of existence or being - OK again...but...

"And it is finite"...we simply can't know that.

3. "the former [existence] appears to transcend in scope and power, the latter [the universe]" - exactly how do you come to this conclusion? There is no evidence that anything beyond "the universe" (which by definition means "everything that exists") exists - and if your first premise "existence exists" indicates that existence is self-existent, what is stopping us from making the same claim about the universe, i.e. that the universe simply exists, or is self-existent - in which case there is no need for any "transcendence" - every other existing thing exists as a logical consequence of the existence of the universe.

4. If there is no "transcendence", then the word "God" might just as well refer to the universe itself - or it is completely redundant and has nothing to refer to.

This is not "fighting" - it is showing that I have read and understood your argument and I disagree with it for very sound reasons which I have now explained in some detail.