Subject: Re: Proof God Did NOT Create The Universe Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:27 am
I would love the chance to do that T.E.M. So far, however there are a couple of people who want to play silly semanitc games. I think they're afraid that if they allow for a definition of God that may then have to address the actual arguments. Instead they have thusfar pretended God cannot be defined in order to try to dodge the arguments being given.
The definition of God which I have given is pretty much identical actually to the God of orthodox monotheism.
viz. A God who is personal [a person without a body ie. a spirit, who is necessarily eternal [thus not a contingent being but has always existed and always will, not dependent on time], omnipotent [able to do whatever is logically possible], rational, perfectly good [always does a morally best action] and omniscient [can know whatever it is logical to know].
Having clarified that I am still awaiting the evidence for the original syllogism on this thread?
Number of posts: 753 Age: 59 Location: southeastern north america ;) Registration date: 2008-09-02
Subject: Re: Proof God Did NOT Create The Universe Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:01 am
... [passes around collection plate]
You touch precisely here a part of the major issue for me (presumed humor/sarcasm aside?!)
In contextual contrast, would there be much/as much of a problem for many LiMists ("afdrists"?) with FDR ("believers") if there were no Donation 'plate'? [deFOOing aside]
I'll simply make the point that "god," (or "theos," "deus," "bog," "Gott," etc.) is not necessarily a meaningless word.
Agreed. I'd seek to balance that a bit with a need to examine "meaningless" though. I mean addicts don't find their intoxicant meaningless. And I don't think most would consider most fiction meaningless --and I wonder if those who would legislate it meaningless realize how godish (Authoritarian) that is? [how much legislation is there akin to Theos bless America/In Theos We Trust?]
God, with it's illogical/deceptive atheist, are arguably too historically tainted to be lumped with a presently popular theory being used as scientific proof.
The contention has been made that it is a meaningless word, and thus theism cannot be true since it is inherently and unavoidably meaningless. I see no evidence that it is inherently impossible to define God-- I've tried to do so myself with something along the lines of "a sentient intelligence containing all the information in the universe."
So why not use the label "Nature" for your lines, rather than the tainted "God"? I have little to no issue with these lines either. I'm simply seeing my position as coming from the too-long presumed (and including a huge amount of violent enforcement/coercion/duress to get it there) position that to label "I don't know" about any theory regarding anything inherently validates the Authoritarianism. Not to get into all it potentially invokes. Since the Enlightenment/Age Of Reason/Scientific Age, "I don't know" (until it's proven and no longer one of several theories) is more aligned with a label like "enlightened", "rational", "normal", "sane" even. "Atheist" is but a power/control-seeking tainted remnant that's sustained for too long.
To claim any and all who won't carte blanc accept as valid the label "aipfuist" because they can't "prove" "She" "exists" is laughable. For this same reason, "atheist" should (logically) be rejected/rebuked. Allowing it to continue unrenounced ('arenounced'?) continues the historical patterns.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster holds all the attributes of a Beginner. Why not FSM instead of GOD?! Why not?? Because there's controlled ground to be lost perhaps?!?
My issue with Godists is very much the same many have with Stef/FDR/some FDRists: the effect and impact it has on individuals. (see "Holy Moly" anyone?) Anyone here being taken to task/asked to "chill" regarding discussion of "FDR"? "deFOO"? So why deatheistists (me)??
Sure, this definition may not be the same as many or most theists' definition-- but the concepts are what's important-- so let's just try get back to the meaning behind words rather than the words themselves.
I simply don't think that's possible, nor wise.
It's just as I called for with CT: if you're going to link a label to the available science theory of this choice, then call the object of your theory "The Beginner". After all, they do not refer to the universe having a God in the theory's first tenets!!! Rather, the theory simply appeals to a Beginning. It's pure hypothesis (or faith/hope) that proposed science-backed Beginning morphs therein to "God" (Omnipresent (CT's "person"?), Omnipotent, Omniscient, [fill in all the historical attributes ad infinitum here], etc). Why not at least just the "Super-Natural"? And if consistent, it's just as easily simply "The Natural" (Nature+all) if/since (theoretically) it is, afterall, "knowable" (unto us)? [CT's already brought that one in with his post's comment about "should behave" as being able through The BeginnerTheos "God" to know such]
With due political correctness/prior hyperbole abuse aside/noted, presuming allowing "God" here with a theories mere "Beginning" as valid is akin to saying one should embrace Nazi with the theory of government [lower case "g" intentional]. After all, it was simply a word for 'The Nation', something 'common' as believed to be meaningful at some deep, personal level?!? Folks just disagree about it's definition/meaning --as all to be considered regarding it?!? After all, the actual words are in common dictionaries (ie "national" "social"). And yeah, it had/has it's 'theories' (and some's 'science') as well, does it not? And if you think that too radical, I'll provide you sources that found Nazism They'd reject that "ism" bias; it's merely Nationalsozial -- quite meaningful (not only at the time, but still). [and even better, examine "national socialism" (Nationalsozialist) in it's other present fashionings/popular forms of Statism*?!]
Would it be reasonable to label those who find it meaningless (to put it mildly) "anazists"? Would you accept/embrace it, as to let it be tossed about like it's even worthy of note, much less perpetuating? And if enough folks in The Circle of Philosophy began to use the theory and the label again --Beginner forbid!-- as meaningful? If you think that's an appeal akin to fear-mongering, do a web search on "Christian Identity/British Israelism/Zionism" for info along side Islamic Jihad and etc etc. Does one propose that if the label "A Beginner" --or "A Theory" ("We don't know")-- rather than "God" was used regarding a validation via science/theory, that there'd be such (or near as much such)? I can't know, but 'almost certain'ly it is "no".
I thank you and all for your time and the space and consideration.
*[State is of course presently a very popular concept, based upon social science theory, no? And so I don't pull a slick one and slide in 'aconditionist' (which is what "state" means per etymology); rather I use astatist; thus I appeal to "agodist" rather than the misleading "atheist"]
Last edited by eye2i2 on Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:06 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : typo-fix)
Number of posts: 281 Registration date: 2008-12-04
Subject: Re: Proof God Did NOT Create The Universe Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:13 am
Hmmm, I don't think I understand all the points you made. But a few things:
A large part of your concern seems to be largely with the baggage (violence, authoritarianism) that many forms of religion have. I'm pretty much in agreement about that, yet I don't see the need to color any and all talk talk of god henceforth with the same brush.
Subject: Re: Proof God Did NOT Create The Universe Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:14 am
The Flying Spaghetti Monster holds all the attributes of a Beginner. Why not FSM instead of GOD?! Why not??
Because the FSM is a terrible analogy / parallel:
The FSM is extended in space and time - God is not.
Subject: Re: Proof God Did NOT Create The Universe Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:19 am
eye2i2 clearly wants to get the discussion onto church history so he can try to discredit the existence of God based on how certain supposed theists behaved. This of course is a logical fallacy in itself but is clearly the area where eye2i2 would be happiest discussing. As if those who have not believed in God have all been saints!!! This way of trying to discredit God is completely unphilosophical despite being popularist. This would explain the constant harassment I receive for not having 'named' God thusfar.
Subject: Re: Proof God Did NOT Create The Universe Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:30 am
And will you 'chill' about being asked to 'chill'?? If you really cannot talk any other way than f###ing and blinding then go for it.
See what I mean. Here comes the Dawkins in you! You want to talk about fundamentalists [Zionism / Jihad - taken in it's smaller meaning and ignoring its primary meaning]. This, "watch out theism kills" rubbish has been done already and everyone laughs at it for the nonsense it really is. That's a very desperate route to take.
Your account of post-enlightenment thought is fallacious too. It gave birth to modernism [of which one of its main cercerns was verifiable proof] but that was superceded at least 30 years ago by what is being called postmodernism which is far less certain about such words as 'proof'. Postmodernism has taken note of work done in the philosophy of science where scientists do not talk about verifiable proof or facts any more but rather paradigms and falsifiability.
Watch.... Wait for it... Here it comes: Hey, that's just one perverted sect of the FSM your witness is addressing. They've got it all wrong, can't you see?! THE Truth about FSM is simply that She's Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, A Person, The Beginner... The One scientific theory proves.
Would it perhaps assist you abit if we use Her other Name? You can all her the IPU if you prefer.
Number of posts: 753 Age: 59 Location: southeastern north america ;) Registration date: 2008-09-02
Subject: Re: Proof God Did NOT Create The Universe Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:34 am
And will you 'chill' about being asked to 'chill'??
Classic. I'd respond "LOL" but then that's not in your Dictionary, so WTF.
If you really cannot talk any other way than f###ing and blinding then go for it.
Huh? Oh, I guess I should express my humble gratitude to the Almighty's Authority In The Universe for blessing my action... howzat?
And this "f###ing"; is that but another synonym for "God", like "Theos"? [BTW, I have no problem with your typing that; after all, if I don't understand, gosh, amazing isn't it, I can simply ask you what it means (to you)!]
Which is as good a place as any to restate it: my issue is not with a Beginner, per se; rather it is with the faith-leap of labeling such "God". Do I copy paste the COMMON meanings for it here? [and yes, equally again restated: screw your Academia Circle Philosophism pick'n'chose/made-up meaning]
Oh, WTF(rog) [bold text mine]:
God n 1: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions [syn: God, Supreme Being] 2: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force [syn: deity, divinity, immortal] 3: a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men" 4: a material effigy that is worshipped as a god; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god" [syn: idol, graven image]
God \God\ (g[o^]d), n. [AS. god; akin to OS. & D. god, OHG. got, G. gott, Icel. gu[eth], go[eth], Sw. & Dan. gud, Goth. gup, prob. orig. a p. p. from a root appearing in Skr. h[=u], p. p. h[=u]ta, to call upon, invoke, implore. [root]30. Cf. Goodbye, Gospel, Gossip.] 1. A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity; a deity; an object of worship; an idol.
He maketh a god, and worshipeth it. --Is. xliv. 15.
The race of Israel . . . bowing lowly down To bestial gods. --Milton.
2. The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.
God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. --John iv. 24.
3. A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard.
Whose god is their belly. --Phil. iii.19.
4. Figuratively applied to one who wields great or despotic power. [R.] --Shak.
Now, as I'm almost certain (which means for you "know") you're going to squawk about one source being "1913", I left it in hopes of tying back to another point I've seemed unable to get you to accept/admit: definitions come and go. Who are you to say one day "agodist" won't be in a dictionary?! (oh, and say one day the likes of "Jehovah" and "atheist" no longer will? I offer therein, that the problem is not creating new words, it is rather in doing so that you don't also define them. Evidence easily recognizable, that you've followed my meaning pretty read'able'y (readably).
See what I mean.
Uh, no?!? You want me to add "Sorry to disappoint you"?
Here comes the Dawkins in you!
Now doG must be InSpiriting you, giving you divinity-powers? FWIW, I've never read Dawkins. May I quote you here? "I don't know where you got that from."
You want to talk about fundamentalists [Zionism / Jihad - taken in it's smaller meaning and ignoring its primary meaning].
"smaller meaning" So why don't you quit discussing FDR? But if you wish to contend that the God Blessed America is a "small" meaning, have at it, with this God's blessing. It's your theory of course as you please.
This, "watch out theism kills" rubbish has been done already and everyone laughs at it for the nonsense it really is. That's a very desperate route to take.
I get to quote you yet once more in having established precedent: "I never said theism kills. I don't know where you got that." Not to mention, I wouldn't have wish to imply it in that sense; a concept can't kill in the sense you've granted via context. Only individuals can kill, and yes, individuals embracing theism and agodism (and Statists etc etc) alike have had their share of killing.
And yet you say this specific like it's hardly ever claimed that "atheism kills"!?! Why not just pin it down and say some people kill, but all the more sadly when it's based upon delusion/indoctrination (eg like claims that a theory within some science circles establishes a Beginner=proves God)?
Crucial to this argument of yours, I propose therefore, is to ask: who, historically, has gotten the most "Get Out Of Jail Free" cards for their killing? a.) those who back it with saying it has "God" behind it? b.) those who say they don't believe in God and just did it? [do I quote "God Bless The Queen"/God Bless America" for starters? which again reminds me: you've yet to address why it might be that neither has "God" instead of "Theos Bless"?]
From the one who's already let it slip (?) that this "Beginner" gets one to how all "should behave"?!? Oh, no, no, no implication in that; that rejecting this Beginner Theory leads to murder/mayhem. Yet that "nonsense" has been done already as well. What a Dane Cook (afunny).
Your account of post-enlightenment thought is fallacious too. It gave birth to modernism [yada yada yada]
Appeal to Popularism (as Authority)? Pop Culture? A Circle Cult? <---yeah, how relative is that, Copernicus/Vienna/Nationalsozialistische?! You're good/god at (and should chill about?) that.
Gosh, yet another label I'm beginning to offer as value-potential: aPhilosophy (along with agodism --but perhaps I merely repeat myself)
[envisions more aHarry Potter Word-wand waving to follow...]
=== lest I come across as aacademia/anit-professional study, au`contrare; it's more when it comes to manipulation of discussion via mere appeals to/about it; and that mostly with the "soft sciences" ===
Subject: Re: Proof God Did NOT Create The Universe Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:57 am
THE Truth about FSM is simply that She's Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, A Person, The Beginner... The One scientific theory proves.
Sorry to burst you bubble but a 'Monster' implies physicality and so does 'Spaghetti' and the assertion that this SM 'flies' strongly implies at does so in some space and is therefore extended. Therefore it can only be in one place at one time so omnipresent is gone. Omnipotent is gone since we know that physical things are dependant on space-time so that's gone. There's nothing logical about such a being and it's a useless analogy. It was supposed to be a joke. Shame is some atheists think it's some sort of serious response to theism. Duh!!
Subject: Re: Proof God Did NOT Create The Universe Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:44 am
No, that's right you never said explicitly that theism kills but then why bring up Zionism and Jihad and not The Society of Friends for example? Oh, gee, could it be that a pacifist group of theists doesn't quite fit the bill?!? You're squirming.
What is it with you and this "should behave" quote?!? I was not making any metaphysical point when I talk about your behaviour. The CONTEXT quite clearly was talking about how one is expected to formulate arguments in accepted academia [which I know won't bother you in the slightest because you don't debate in that context ever]. That was the purpose of the "should". Stop trying to make more of it than there was to the comment.
"Appeal to popularism"? Haha. Yeh, I do it all the time actually! I believe in evolution because, not being a biologist, I think it's rational too since almost every single biologist on the planet does. On that basis alone I am justified in my belief. I may end up wrong some day but for now I have justification. I find it hard to believe the FDR cultish explanation that all academia is government funded [which it isn't in my country anyway!!] and therefore there exists a worldwide conspiracy where governments decide what academics and scientists can or cannot say or discover. That's the most silly conspiracy 'theory' [and to use that word IS an abuse of it] I've ever heard. The vast majority of scientists accepted falsifiability in the mid-twentieth century since so many long established rules had to be modified or thrown out. Of course, if you want to argue that modern philosophy of science has got it wrong then you'll have to make your case just like anyone else. So I'm looking forward to your refutation of Popper. Although I'm not holding my breath of course since you are not the hottest on supporting argumentation.
You've never read any Dawkins? Well that doesn't negate the fact that you sound like him I'm sorry to tell you!!
When I talk about FDR I don't imply that they represent mainstream atheism. I've never implied that. In fact I have called them "fundamentalist atheists" to disassociate them from more robust forms of the movement. When I mention FDR it's because you remind me of some of the atheists and what they would say on Molly's website. That's all.
I see you're using dictionaries now! Whatever next? I'm truly shocked! I guess it's not an appeal to authority when you do it then? It must be a UPB eh?
Now you don't have a problem with a 'beginner'? I'm tempted to ask you why not? In fact I will. Why?
Number of posts: 753 Age: 59 Location: southeastern north america ;) Registration date: 2008-09-02
Subject: Re: Proof God Did NOT Create The Universe Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Sorry to burst you bubble but a 'Monster' implies physicality and so does 'Spaghetti' and the assertion that ...
Ditto your sorry --and raise you one.
SAYS WHO that these words HAVE to mean such? Oh, the same who says "A Beginner" means God. When clearly, the word is commonly defined by physical characteristics (as being/Being your "Omnipotent")?!? And who arguably IS quite The Monster.
Prove "Omnipotent" apart from appealing to matter/energy? [and by prove, I mean for the comprehension of every adult human, as "the common" for which any such "Omnipresence" would have an iota of practical purpose]
I'll appeal to you once more: Get off of your hobby horse and drop the word God and have the integrity to use "The Beginner".
Do I need to post a "common" dictionary quote for you here as well?
Oh, but that's NOT the common We'll appeal to in this case. Oh no, no. 'We' being some Circle you validate.
And just who are you to tell anyone that "Monster" doesn't mean "Omnipotent"?!? Or that it has to be "physical"? You want to talk about my grand-daughter's monster under her bed?! (yeah, it's probably Theos)
Who are you.... Oh, yeah, let me guess your appeal: you're credentialed/accredited.
Circle gets the dictionary+grammar hammer.
And Spaghetti? My, my, don't you understand a central tenet of the common God's method? Allegory, my son, and metaphor!! After all, to get to your "Beginner" what is it that you HAVE to appeal to? Oh, yeah, the universe as a beginning. But not, it's not logical to use the same appeal regarding The Holy Monster (Flying Spaghetti, I mean, not Jehovah or Allah or WingDing)
Some might just as easily argue that Theism is a joke-- duh!2
I can't and won't speak for your "shame"ful so-called "atheists" and how they take the FSM theos (relative to the True One). Anymore than you've stated you care about where some go with God (as Jesus/Yahweh/Jehovah/Zeus/Caesar/Personal/etc/etc)
Gosh, I just acan't wait to see you likewise destroy the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Invisible = God, Pink = Omnipotent, Unicorn = Theos!!!
Subject: Re: Proof God Did NOT Create The Universe Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:55 am
You appear to have forgotten that this thread was SUPPOSED to be PROOF that God did not create the universe!! We havn't even been offered a reason yet, let alone proof!!!
The difference between the two is this...
With FSM you want to completely negate all three words. They are not even metaphorical. To be metaphorical they ought to reveal something true about the deity being claimed to exist. There's nothing necessary about the FSM. All three terms explicitly indicate a sharp distinction between it and the classic definition of God. It's just the same with the IPU! In fact your example demonstrates the trick your up to here and it's ironic and I've said it before because it's what you originally charged me with and that is making up new meanings to words. You do that for the IPU. Those words don't mean those things. Not even to you they don't. Do grow up! By contrast all the words used in definition of God appeal to their common meanings. Therefore nothing is veiled - unlike your way of mistreating the English language.
Interesting yet again, but amongst all the fog you create there's nothing on Popper. [Just as there was no mention of the Jihad comments or the behave issue or commenting on the beginner issue.] Wasn't wikipedia any help then? [I know that's your secret exemption to authority!!] Surely I gave you enough time to get that far with your research??? Maybe another week will help. Homework in by this time next week then please!
I'm not going drop the word God on your request. You've given no good reasons why I should. I'm not a deist. I'm not going to submit to your authority. You are an aphilosophist after all!! Who cares about what they think. They think they're oh so rebellious with their aphilosophy not realizing it's still philosophy - just a poorer version of it! You're like someone driving down the road in his car shouting out the window "I'm acarist!!!"