Total posts: 7,093
-->
@ethang5
You told me to work on my argument. The op isn't actually an argument it is a question. I rephrased that question in an attempt to meet your request. You tend to start with the presupposition that your specific god exists. I am asking you to step back from that and consider the plethora of other possibilities and explain why your faith based beliefs are more credible than any other faith based beliefs.
For example let us assume that the very existence of the observable universe necessitates a creator, why would that creator necessarily conform to the description of Yahweh presented in the bible any more than it might conform to the description of Jupiter or Ra? Indeed why would it necessarily conform to any known human idea?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I don't know for certain. For convenience sake I assume that we are both real and that I am the entity you know as SecularMerlin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
That would seem to logically follow but we must then presume upon the rules of logic which we have constructed through our interactions with "reality". In the end the most honest response I can give is I don't know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
It is all right for you to as I me anything you like I just wasn't sure if you thought there was some connection."Firstly I do not claim to know if I exist or not."ok, i thought you did. so, what DO you believe? Anything?"Secondly no I'm not really comfortable with that but I'm not sure what my comfort level has to do with what I believe."It has nothing to do with it. I was just curious. is that ok?
As for beliefs they are different from knowledge. This thread deals with knowledge and the fact that the only thing I can be objectively certain of is that I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be totally illusory.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
You've ignored the most important parts of my post. The existence of some god(s) is only one of many things I have no evidence for or against what makes this issue different than any other? Why is this the only issue which you do not expect direct evidence but rather you accept in a total lack of conclusive evievidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Firstly I do not claim to know if I exist or not. Secondly no I'm not really comfortable with that but I'm not sure what my comfort level has to do with what I believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I do not have any of the books in question. If I don't need them then I would be happy to play if you feel this is a problem then I will back out as gracefully as possible.
Created:
-->
@janesix
I cannot say that nothing would convince me but it does seem unlikely.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I do not claim to have evidence for or against the idea that some god(s) exist. Do you know what that leaves me with? No evidence of god(s).
I do not have evidence for or against a lot of things. I cannot possibly believe all of them.
Created:
-->
@janesix
In our shared observable reality. Even then I must begin with the untestable presupposition that our shared reality is real.
Created:
-->
@janesix
I cannot know without being presented with such evidence but it would have to be verifiable regardless of my current beliefs in much the same way that the existence of gravity or New Zealand is verifiable through evidence that is not dependent on my personal beliefs.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Is rephrasing and saying I have no reason to believe I have observed any god(s) that screwed in lightbulbs sufficient?Would you like to soften your claim?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
The god you believe in may be maximally knowledgeable and therefore need no proof but we as human beings do. Without proof we as human beings tend to come to wrong conclusions too often to discount.God needs no "proof".
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I'm not sure how to prove a negative but I have no particular reason to believe that any god(s) were involved. If we use screwing in a lightbulb as a placeholder for any observable physical effect on the observable universe we can include other types of effects as well.how do you know the person screwing in a light bulb you thought was a human being was not God?
When I believe in the supernatural I could point to many unexplained happenings but if I am honest with myself I have no evidence to support the idea that each was not a coincidence or just wishful thinking. I believed in the absence of evidence and had somehow acquired completely unfounded beliefs about the universe.
How do you one of those instances wasn't God?
Objective certainty about any "fact" may be beyond humans. One cannot prove the impossibility of even farfetched ideas. Brussels teapot could be floating halfway between earth and mars and some god may have disguised itself as a human and screwed in a lightbulb in front of me without making any indication of its true nature. That is why I do not focus on what cpuld be if we assume I focus on what is and is not supported by testable peer reviewed study and our shared reality.
I did not speak of a hypothetical being
You are not referencing Yahweh which is the hypothetical figure posited in the old and new testament of the christian bible?
I gave you 3 answers
Since each of your answers leans heavily on the presupposed existence of some creator I would like to address how you have determined the involvement of the creator in question.
Created:
-->
@ravensjt
I'm not sure what you mean by supreme being. What would qualify as a supreme being?
Created:
Why in the world would you talk about God and light bulbs if you have no way of recognizing God even if you saw Him?
Because some individuals claim to have experienced god(s) and I am curious exactly what that means
Answer 1 - The same way you determined that every character you've seen screwing in a light bulb was not God.
My only claim is that in every instance of a lightbulb being screwed in I have ever witnessed a human being was directly involved.
Answer 2 - Inductive Logic. Creation of the sun required great power. Only God has sufficient power. Only God could have created the sun.
How have you determined that this hypothetical being possesses this power and how have you determined that no other being or undetected force could?
Answer 3 - Deductive Logic. The universe is created. The sun is part of the created universe. God is the creator. Therefore God created the sun.
How have you determined that the universe was created? I only ask because the rest of your argument hinges on this presumption.
How have you determined that, assuming that the universe was created that some god(s) are responsible?
How have you determined that, assuming that some god(s) are responsible for creating the universe how have you determined that your particular god concept is specifically responsible?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I am not making a positive claim.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
He asked how it was not an argument from ignorance, that is arguing that since we don't know something we can assume a particular stance rather than saying "we don't know".
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
How is admitting that we don't know arrogant?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
If you witnessed God screwing in a light bulb, how would you know it was God?
I'm not sure but that would be my first question if you claimed to have seen it.
God made the sun.
And how have you determined that
Created:
-->
@ravensjt
I think you mean it is untenable to make a positive claim about the existence or nonexistence of "god like" beings of any kind although I would be more apt to believe in physical beings with advanced technology (since I have observed both physical beings and technology) than any supernatural or spiritual being (since I have never 9bserved a spirit or anything supernatural.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
And that is very mature. I'm not sure how you retain your beliefs since that exact realization led to my current skepticism but good on you.
Created:
-->
@ravensjt
"Seem godlike" is a little vague. My cellphone and my car might make me seem godlike to someone from the 1800s. Also I have no idea how to asighn a probability on how likely it is that any extraterrestrial intelligence even exists.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I haven't always been an atheist. My skepticism is the result of examining my beliefs and finding that they were not based on reasonable evidence.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
And how have you determined that?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The hand of the human is not part of the human?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
No? A human cannot reach out with its hand and screw in a lightbulb?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
In this context personally means by oneself without the use of an intermediary or tool if any kind and screw means to manipulate such that the bulb is seated in the socket properly to receive the flow of electricity and therefore light up.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
only if it is impossible to directly screw in a lightbulb for oneself without a 3d body.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
How would you like to define limits if not as what any given being is incapable of? I would like to answer your question if I could but first we must be clear about our terms.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Perhaps but that is not the subject of the op.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
In that case how do we determine the difference between a god acting through or influencing a mortal agency and the mortal agency just deciding to screw in a lightbulb? Also, and I am sorry to have to keep reminding you, the op specifically excludes god(s) influencing mortals and focuses on gods getting off their god butts and doings things for themselves.
Created:
-->
@ravensjt
Discount is perhaps a strong term. Better to say I see no reason to believe in such a being.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
As I said before on another thread I am not qualified to diagnose mental illness. My first question if ypur claim is that you have seen a lightbulb screwed in directly by a god without the intervention of a mortal would actually be "How do you know that no mortals were involved?"
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I have never observed a lightbulb to be screwed in by such means have you?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Ok what does this have to do with some god(s) being able and willing to personally screw in a lightbulb for themselves without the intervention of mortals?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Just to be clear this has nothing to do with the op.
Created:
-->
@ravensjt
I do not claim to have evidence for or against the idea that some god(s) exist. This thread is merely asking about god claims of a particular nature.
Created:
-->
@Smithereens
If you're coming up with definitions that rule God out of existence, then you've got your answer: God doesn't exist. Easy.
I have no evidence for or against the existence of some god(s) we can however dismiss certain god claims as logically impossible. Any object or being with no limits is logically impossible therefore we can dismiss god claims that include limitless power.
You wish to redefine omnipotence to get around this problem and so that is what we are attempting to do.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
A limit is in this context a thing that one is incapable of doing. In the cas3 of an immovable object it is a physical limit. In the case at a married bachelor it is a linguistic limit. One is tautalogical and one is actual. Both are limitations.How are you "limited" by the impossiblilty of you being a married bachelor?
Does that answer your question from post 46?
Created:
I have not accepted anything as yet. So far we are only defining terms.If you so easily accept that an omniscient God can't be ignorant, an Omnipresent God can't be absent and an omnibenevolent God can't be evil, why is it difficult to suggest that an omnipotent God can't be a contradiction?I don't see why definitions of terms are so impactful. If there is a God and he can't make square triangles, well, so what..?
Created:
-->
@Smithereens
Those discussing the matter get to decide what it means for the purposes of the discussion they are having which is exactly what we are engaged in doing right now.
Created:
-->
@Smithereens
Lying can't be done by an omnibenevolent being. You aren't one, so you can do it. Just like how ignorance is not possible for an omniscient being and absence is not possible for an omnipresent being.
So now our "omnipotent" being cannot do all logically possible things. The new definition "capable of all things that are logically possible" must be scrapped along with "able to do anything" what is the new definition we are to try?
Created:
That sir depends entirely on the christians you ask. Some may not have given it much thought and some may actually believe that their god can make an object that can never be moved and then go ahead and move it and some may think their god has limits but that those limits are beyond understanding. These are far from the only possibilities by the way.Answer me this, what do you think a Christian means when they suggest God is all powerful?
Created:
-->
@Smithereens
But lying is logically possible. Are you suggesting I am capable of a feet that an omnipotent being cannot reproduce?
Created:
-->
@Smithereens
Lying is logically possible. If this omnipotent being cannot do that it cannot even do all logically possible things. How shall we adjust the definition now?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I thought I answered your question in post 39. The inability to do logically inconsistent things is a limit. The inability to do things outside ones nature is a limit. The idea of an object or being with absolutely no limits is logically impossible. Do you wish to reword your question? Have I been unclear somehow?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I would be happy to hear suggestions for how the question should have been worded. Honestly screw in a lightbulb is just a placeholder for any observable physical act.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
This is a serious question and not meant as a jab, though of course you are under no obligation to answer whether you have an answer or not.
Created: