God Allah Yahweh Jehovah Tao

[cesare]

It was the closest option to what I think. God almost certainly doesn't exist

Pondering irrelevancies like God is a distraction from the real world, anyway

Off you go then!

 

[danny la rouge]

But what I was saying is that I voted away from the knowledge based options (from where belief and evidence and the like flow) because I was allowed the choice of existence based ones.

Nope, you've lost me again.


What is it you are saying about the option, "possibly exists"?

 

[cesare]

Nope, you've lost me again.


What is it you are saying about the option, "possibly exists"?

Well, my personal choices were only limited to two options.

I couldn't say 'definitely exists' or 'definitely doesn't exist' because both of those infer that human knowledge is the same as, or greater than, the fact of existence - when in fact knowledge is a part of existence. At the end of the day both those options are belief and/or evidence based, and those flow from knowledge (or lack of it).

I couldn't choose 'probably exists' because that infers a degree of belief.

I could have chosen 'definitely don't know' and if it were a multi option poll I would have voted for that one as well as my primary one.

Which is 'possibly exists' - because it is possible. The next part of the discussion is about the extent of that possibility or choosing to reject it as irrelevant in the way that InBloom has.

A different way of explaining it would be to ask a different question. Do you think that it's possible that life exists on another planet? I suspect that the answers to that question would have a lot more people voting in the 'possibly exists' option - because nothing about that question inherently challenges their internal belief system.

 

[danny la rouge]

A different way of explaining it would be to ask a different question. Do you think that it's possible that life exists on another planet? I suspect that the answers to that question would have a lot more people voting in the 'possibly exists' option - because nothing about that question inherently challenges their internal belief system.

If I may. I think the answer to that question is "probably exists". Probably, not inferring belief, but in a statistical sense.

There may be tens of billions of planets in our Galaxy alone; we don't know, but we can estimate. Yet we only know for certain that life exists on only one. Now, we can either say that life is very, very improbable, and that we are therefore a one in tens of billions occurrence, or we can say that it is unlikely that the conditions for life will here and here alone.

That is for this galaxy. Hubble scientists estimate there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe. So life is either infinitesimally improbable, or, despite the lack of evidence, there is a probability it arose elsewhere in the universe too. I favour the latter. I'm not keen on things being so very improbable, although it is, of course, possible for them to be.

For me, that is a very different set of propositions from the set involved in discussing a supreme being: We have evidence of life, once; we have no evidence of a supreme being. We have probabilities to work with for life; we have no probabilities to work with regarding a supreme being. We even know the conditions necessary for life; we do not know the same about a supreme being. In fact all we know about a supreme being is what Anselm knew: that the idea exists.

But we know that many ideas exist without them describing reality. We can either put up with the clutter of admitting all those ideas have possible counterparts in reality, or we say, no, we work on the assumption that they do not exist, unless there is good evidence. I favour the latter. It may well be that you favour the former, but I'm sure there are many ideas you don't seriously entertain as "possibly exists". How then do you choose?

 

[Demosthenes]

We do have evidence for the existence of a supreme being.

That there is anything at all, that there is consciousness, and that many people reckon they've encountered the supreme being.

 

[danny la rouge]

That isn't evidence.

"That there is anything at all" is merely restating a belief in a creator; it isn't evidence of one. That many people believe in a creator is only evidence of belief, not of a creator.

 

[Demosthenes]

Well, the evidence that I've experienced that the universe has mentality seems to me just as good as the evidence that I've experienced any human's mentality.

I don't doubt the universe's consciousness for just the same reason I don't doubt yours.

You won't accept that as evidence, but that's just restating that you don't believe in God, and you don't believe me./

 

[Gmart]

Well, the evidence that I've experienced that the universe has mentality seems to me just as good as the evidence that I've experienced any human's mentality.

I don't doubt the universe's consciousness for just the same reason I don't doubt yours.

You won't accept that as evidence, but that's just restating that you don't believe in God, and you don't believe me./

Let me get this straight, you believe that the universe is alive in some way? I mean, it is, of course, the whole universe would seem to be teeming with life, but are you anthropomorphising it some how?

 

[Demosthenes]

Well of course I'm anthropomorphising it. Because the way we're set up is so that we understand minds in a particular human way. It may not be entirely accurate when it comes to God, but it's the best we can do.

 

[Demosthenes]

Quite seriously, I don't think consciousness is a property of brains, or certain types of brains. I think it's a property of the universe, and although it seems to us as if we're singular individual consciousnesses, that's in a sense an illusion, though not one that all humans suffer from, - just one that's particularly prevalent in this time and place.

 

[cesare]

If I may. I think the answer to that question is "probably exists". Probably, not inferring belief, but in a statistical sense.

There may be tens of billions of planets in our Galaxy alone; we don't know, but we can estimate. Yet we only know for certain that life exists on only one. Now, we can either say that life is very, very improbable, and that we are therefore a one in tens of billions occurrence, or we can say that it is unlikely that the conditions for life will here and here alone.

That is for this galaxy. Hubble scientists estimate there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe. So life is either infinitesimally improbable, or, despite the lack of evidence, there is a probability it arose elsewhere in the universe too. I favour the latter. I'm not keen on things being so very improbable, although it is, of course, possible for them to be.

For me, that is a very different set of propositions from the set involved in discussing a supreme being: We have evidence of life, once; we have no evidence of a supreme being. We have probabilities to work with for life; we have no probabilities to work with regarding a supreme being. We even know the conditions necessary for life; we do not know the same about a supreme being. In fact all we know about a supreme being is what Anselm knew: that the idea exists.

But we know that many ideas exist without them describing reality. We can either put up with the clutter of admitting all those ideas have possible counterparts in reality, or we say, no, we work on the assumption that they do not exist, unless there is good evidence. I favour the latter. It may well be that you favour the former, but I'm sure there are many ideas you don't seriously entertain as "possibly exists". How then do you choose?

How do I choose? Me personally?

I'd rather start from a position of 'possibly exists' than limit myself to the extent of my own knowledge. But then, I don't hold an atheist belief system to reconcile/justify.

Btw, wasn't Anselm's argument that there was an idea of God as "infinite in all perfections," rather than there just being an idea of God?

And didn't Anselm's argument fall down because he thought that existence was a property of objects, in much the same way that you appear to think that knowability demarcates the realm of the ontologically possible?

lol

 

[cesare]

Assuming you mean Anselm of Canterbury here, Danny?

 

[cesare]

That isn't evidence.

"That there is anything at all" is merely restating a belief in a creator; it isn't evidence of one. That many people believe in a creator is only evidence of belief, not of a creator.

But the reverse holds true as well. That many people disbelieve in a creator is only evidence of disbelief, not of a lack of creator.

So I see theism, and equally atheism, as belief systems.

I was quite interested in what you had to say about 'entertaining of clutter' just now Danny. That's very similar to what InBloom was saying (unless I've mistaken you). I also think that it's interesting that you seem to have interpreted my 'possibly exists' as a 'probably exists' i.e. once you accept the concept of possible existence, naturally you then start to move from that to a positive position of belief. Which needs to be put right. Or if not put right, at least to be convinced that that acceptance of the possibility of existence shouldn't be entertained any further along speculative lines.

But what's wrong with speculating, unless one has a belief system that inhibits you from doing so?

 

[danny la rouge]

How do I choose? Me personally?

Sorry, no, how does one choose if one takes that line? (I find even writing "one" as a pronoun a bit too poncy, but perhaps I should to avoid confusion).

Yeah, St Anselm was the dude I was on about. However, his argument wasn't that existence was a property of objects, but that it was a property of perfect beings. His leap was "I can conceive of a perfect being" ---> "A perfect being who didn't actually exist wouldn't be very perfect, since existence is necessary for perfection." ---> "Since I can conceive of a perfect being, and since existence is necessary for perfection, he must exist".

I know you weren't arguing that, but I could see a similarity in the way you seemed to me to be giving a weight to "possibly exists" beyond mere imagining. I can conceive of much that is unreal. However, my being able to conceive of it does not lend any weight to it.

I am not, though, starting from a point of atheism and coming up with a justification. For me, the journey was very much the other way. Indeed, as an unashamed rationalist and empiricist, if there was evidence for a supreme being, I would examine that evidence, and alter my opinion accordingly.

 

[Gmart]

I find even writing "one" as a pronoun a bit too poncy

perfect being etc

I can conceive of much that is unreal. However, my being able to conceive of it does not lend any weight to it.

Indeed, as an unashamed rationalist and empiricist

Why would you worry about other people so much as to think about this? Fear of using a perfectly reasonable part of grammar?

What is a perfect being? can 'it' play football perfectly as well? can 'it' create a rock it cannot lift'?

Just sounds like linguistic irrelevancies, about as useful as asking 'who are you?', it's just looking for a label.

Isn't rationality about recognising logical fallacies. Things which seem reasonable, but which actually are just red herrings?

 

[quimcunx]

I've put def not, but am willing to reassess should any new evidence be uncovered.

 

[danny la rouge]

What is a perfect being? can 'it' play football perfectly as well? can 'it' create a rock it cannot lift'?

Just sounds like linguistic irrelevancies

That's correct: Anselm was playing semantics. He was a hopeless mystic.

 

[Barking_Mad]

ive been alive for 33 years (out of the billions already gone) and can categorically state, here and now, on this very board, due to some brief scanning of science and stuff over the last 20 of those years, that we have all the answers, and the answer is...........

 

[Barking_Mad]

id like to thank athiests everywhere for being so sure of nothing.

*claps ironically*

 

[cesare]

ive been alive for 33 years (out of the billions already gone) and can categorically state, here and now, on this very board, due to some brief scanning of science and stuff over the last 20 of those years, that we have all the answers, and the answer is...........

 

[rover07]

Jesus is going to be soooo angry about this poll. Best get down on your knees and start praying

 

[Barking_Mad]

the truth is no one really know whether he/she/it exists. Nor does it really matter.

What is more certain is that at certain points in history, people of great knowledge, able to bore inside the human soul and understand it, came upon certain ideas about how they thought mankind should live their lives and treat their fellow humans. It was only after the interference of the state and others that this message became bastardised to the degree of pointless theological dialogue. This only served (in their favour) to complicate messages of peace, forgiveness and compassion, that even under the most forgiving political systems devised ever since, fail to convey at the heart of their message.

 

[Gmart]

So it's all about one set of people persuading themselves that they can tell another set of people how to live,

and then when they tell them to eff off, they can justify killing them?

Nice!!

 

[Lock&Light]

So it's all about one set of people persuading themselves that they can tell another set of people how to live,

and then when they tell them to eff off, they can justify killing them?

Nice!!

Even a small child could point out your idiocy, but then I'm not a small child.

 

[Gmart]

Even a small child could point out your idiocy, but then I'm not a small child.

I'm sorry, am I being an idiot here?

I was just commenting on the neo-puritanism of people moralising at others. I don't like it when others decide to tell me what I should and shouldn't do, and furthermore I think it is down to the adult concerned to decide what is moral for them, not up to others to take it upon themselves to moralise at people.

It is so disrespectful and they should mind their own business!!!

Which is why religion is considered to be a personal issue only and not worth talking about until one of the faithful decide to turn to violence.

 

[butchersapron]

Religion that is only a personal issue is not religion.

I'm not even going to touch on the bizzare chain of logic in the above post.

 

[Gmart]

Religion that is only a personal issue is not religion.

I'm not even going to touch on the bizzare chain of logic in the above post.

Oh botcher... Didn't understand again!!! One wonders why you draw attention to it over and over??

So when is religion NOT a personal issue then?

 

[butchersapron]

I said 'only'. Did you see that bit? What do you think it meant whith the context of my post?

And again, i understood the central claim, but not the unnconnected 'logic' that preceded it and that's supposed to support it.

 

[Gmart]

Didn't occur to you to ask of course, just insult...

I saw the 'only' and asked you for examples of when it is NOT a personal issue... and I am still waiting...

 

[butchersapron]

I didn't insult. And how can i give you an example of something not being a personal issue when i've not argued that there's ever cases where it's not (note this word) also a personal issue?

I do think you've missed the point.