tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post288764232175337561..comments2010-11-21T02:17:45.580-08:00Comments on The Dumb Planet: Dumb Subjects: TheologyAshurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417015465252344017noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-25749479897348998582010-07-13T18:00:52.830-07:002010-07-13T18:00:52.830-07:00You're treating God's nonexistence as a pr...<em>You're treating God's nonexistence as a priori knowledge? Wow, you've made everything so simple! Thank you!</em><br /><br />At no point did I.<br /><br /><em>"P.S. <b>Most empty boxes are full</b>. Just because you can't see air doesn't mean it isn't there. "</em><br /><br /><b>FAIL</b>Ashurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417015465252344017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-10178785752553504692010-07-12T10:11:58.737-07:002010-07-12T10:11:58.737-07:00You're treating God's nonexistence as a pr...You're treating God's nonexistence as <i>a priori</i> knowledge? Wow, you've made everything so simple! Thank you!<br /><br />P.S. Most empty boxes are full. Just because you can't see air doesn't mean it isn't there.chathamhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10196532065768662796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-10212292216902977032010-07-12T09:57:31.286-07:002010-07-12T09:57:31.286-07:00I merely observed that you assert that God does no...<em><br />I merely observed that you assert that God does not exist.<br /></em><br /><br />I don't assert god doesn't exist. God doesn't exist. I just observe the lack of proof or disproof, which is <b>because</b> god doesn't exist to leave this proof or disprove.<br /><br />You don't need to assert the existence of an empty box, just observe that there's nothing inside it.<br /><br /><em><br />Lack of evidence is strong grounds for nonbelief.<br /></em><br /><br />Yes it is. It's actually the perfect grounds for disbelief.<br /><br /><em><br />If this the case, neither you nor I can speak meaningfully on the question of God's existence. <br /></em><br /><br />We don't need to speak meaningfully on god's existence. There is no god.Ashurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417015465252344017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-49925796223105632842010-07-12T09:42:10.851-07:002010-07-12T09:42:10.851-07:00I'm sorry if I made a straw man, it was not my...I'm sorry if I made a straw man, it was not my intention. I merely observed that you assert that God does not exist, and presumed that that assertion was predicated on the lack of evidence for his existence.<br /><br />Lack of evidence is strong grounds for nonbelief, but it is not grounds for nonexistence if the thing in question can exist without being observed. There is no reason that such a property is outside God's power, as he is by definition omnipotent. If this the case, neither you nor I can speak meaningfully on the question of God's existence.chathamhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10196532065768662796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-70375334190772873902010-07-12T07:39:46.240-07:002010-07-12T07:39:46.240-07:00Feel free to elaborate.
I do.
No, it characte...<em><br />Feel free to elaborate. <br /></em><br /><br />I do.<br /><br /><em><br />No, it characterizes Him as a thing that probably never existed.<br /></em><br /><br />There's no evidence.<br /><br /><em><br />It seems God has interacted with the physical universe, if you believe Scripture. That He has not been seen to do so recently is not necessarily a problem; He's omnipotent, and has apparently chosen either not to interact, or not to observably interact.<br /></em><br /><br />There's no evidence.<br /><br /><em><br />As there is no evidence for God, He does not exist.<br /></em><br /><br />A lie. I never said god didn't exist because there is no evidence. I said there is no evidence because god doesn't exist.<br /><br />Stop making straw mans.Ashurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417015465252344017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-89131592438891861892010-07-12T07:32:15.194-07:002010-07-12T07:32:15.194-07:00I had a typo in my comment about your evidence. I ...I had a typo in my comment about your evidence. I meant to note that you made no affirmative case for God's non-existence, and so I had to presume that your belief that God does not exist was predicated on the lack of evidence for his existence. Such nonbelief in God is rational, but it does not preclude God's existence.<br /><br />Your propositions:<br />If things exist, they leave evidence of it in their interactions.<br />If things do not exist, they do not leave evidence of it in their interactions.<br />As there is no evidence for God, He does not exist.<br /><br />"Things that exist interact with the physical universe."<br /><br />It seems God has interacted with the physical universe, if you believe Scripture. That He has not been seen to do so recently is not necessarily a problem; He's omnipotent, and has apparently chosen either not to interact, or not to observably interact.<br /><br />"Things that don't exist never interact with the physical universe."<br /><br />Right-o on that one.<br /><br />"Because for a thing to leave proof or disproof it must exist in the first place."<br /><br />Right again.<br /><br />"The very fact that there is no proof or disproof of god characterizes him as 'a thing that never existed'."<br /><br />No, it characterizes Him as a thing that probably never existed.<br /><br />"You have no idea fella."<br /><br />Feel free to elaborate.chathamhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10196532065768662796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-43212902064204757022010-07-12T06:11:47.852-07:002010-07-12T06:11:47.852-07:00What is all of the philosophy that conclusively pr...<em>What is all of the philosophy that conclusively proves that God does not exist? You show no evidence , that abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence is a fallacy.<br /></em><br /><br />And claiming I made the claim that lack of evidence is 'disproof' would be a fallacy too, because I didn't.<br /><br />Let me tell you about things that do and do not exist, and why only things which exist have proof or disproof.<br /><br />Things that exist interact with the physical universe. These interactions are characteristic of the thing that is interacting, and we can look at these interactions and say "this is proof of the thing that is interacting". Furthermore, if we look at another interaction, we know whether or not is is the same thing interacting by the nature of those interactions. If it is not, we call this "disproof of the thing that is interacting".<br /><br />Things that don't exist never interact with the physical universe. They have no effect on anything, by virtue of the fact that they are not there. They do not interact with anything, and because of this there is no <b>proof or disproof</b> of the thing. Because for a thing to leave proof or disproof it must exist in the first place.<br /><br />If a thing cannot be proven or disproven, it means it is characteristic of a thing which doesn't exist. <br /><br />God cannot be proven or disproven. This is the primary characteristic of a thing that doesn't exist; it interacts with nothing, leaving neither proof or disproof of itself.<br /><br />This is why nobody is claiming to have 'disproven' god. To claim that, you have to accept that there was evidence for him in the first place.<br /><br />And that would be irrational, wouldn't it?<br /><br />The very fact that there is no proof or disproof of god characterizes him as "a thing that never existed".<br /><br /><em><br />I don't see how your degree was harder than that of a person who has a Ph.D in Theology<br /></em><br /><br />You have no idea fella.Ashurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417015465252344017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-91352162725874669642010-07-11T20:19:16.891-07:002010-07-11T20:19:16.891-07:00Part Two
You claim that religious belief is based...Part Two<br /><br />You claim that religious belief is based on the unobserved. I have known more than one person who will state with certainty that they have had religious truth revealed to them. For such a person, the assertion that God does not exist is as sensible as the assertion that apples are not red. <br /><br />Your logic concerning Yahweh doesn't work out. Yahweh is ostensibly omnipotent; that does not mean he couldn't lose a wrestling match. The point of that passage is that Jacob struggled with God and wasn't destroyed by the struggle. In short, he was a strong man with a strong faith. God, in the Christian worldview, created the universe, and has the power to transform and destroy the world (as seen in Revelation), and by extension, based on the cosmology of the time, the universe.<br /><br />There are a great many Christians who will simply tell you, when confronted with the inconsistency of Christian theology, that such parts are allegorical and are not literally true. Some more complex believers will tell you that the Bible is a melange of oral histories, hope-sustaining prophecy, religious law (which in biblical Jewish society was law for just about everything), and moral teachings. To these more enlightened believers, the Bible is a mixed bag that contains a set of moral teachings surpassing all others. The really audacious ones, like Thomas Jefferson, might well be Deists.<br /><br />I don't see how your degree was harder than that of a person who has a Ph.D in Theology. Even if it is bunkum, articulating a complex and consistent system of bunkum is arguably more difficult than learning a complex and consistent system of true things (like physics and engineering), as it requires a great deal more creative thought to make it all work out. It's why everyone loves MacGyver!chathamhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10196532065768662796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-89230720890749344512010-07-11T20:18:37.779-07:002010-07-11T20:18:37.779-07:00What is all of the philosophy that conclusively pr...What is all of the philosophy that conclusively proves that God does not exist? You show no evidence , that abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence is a fallacy. To be more technical, it's <i>argumentum ad ignorantiam</i>. The existence of God, being non-falsifiable, is simply ambiguous. Given such ambiguity, it is sensible (Occam's razor in action) to presume that God does not exist. I cannot, however, argue in the affirmative that God does exist without evidence that it is so.<br /><br />Americans are dumb and primitive, apparently? Your argument is philosophically unsound, as it is an <i>argumentum ad populum</i>. It does nothing to prove your larger argument. More particularly, you presume that people in Norway have all independently developed concepts of falsifiability and all comprehend that irrational propositions need not be considered. Perhaps they were given their own set of dogmas? Oh wait, never mind. I'm an American, let me just go into the corner and pick my nose.<br /><br />As the question of God is ambiguous, theology is only folly if God does not exist. For those for whom God does exist, theology is (ideally) a rational application of philosophical principles to their worldview. As in the case with your A-levels, the proposition is wholly conditioned upon the premise that God exists. The only thing that mattered for the person marking your paper is that your proceeding arguments were sound.<br /><br />True, the multiplicity of theologies implies that the vast majority of theologies are untrue. Most theologies acknowledge this when they assert that theirs is the one true creed. But here you make your own presumptions. If one of these gods did exist, then the theology devolving from that god would be true, and therefore not bullshit. Therefore, you have proved your assertion "theology is absolute bullshit" is itself bullshit, i.e. an assertion that deliberately obscures the truth to serve one's own ends.chathamhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10196532065768662796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-32441138846913170892010-07-11T16:42:52.405-07:002010-07-11T16:42:52.405-07:00unless, yanno, they were an engineering/religion d...<em><br />unless, yanno, they were an engineering/religion double major, or some equivalent. I've met them, they exist. <br /></em><br /><br />If you study one quacky subject and one rigorous one, the validity of the rigorous one doesn't seep into the stupid one.Ashurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417015465252344017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343440705731999214.post-29813141489484425562010-07-11T16:29:32.514-07:002010-07-11T16:29:32.514-07:00unless, yanno, they were an engineering/religion d...unless, yanno, they were an engineering/religion double major, or some equivalent. I've met them, they exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com