steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Much ado about nothing, but it beats playing video games to pass the time.Sound and fury signifying nothing?If not an exercise in rhetoric, what is debate on existence of a god?
Much ado about nothing, but it beats playing video games to pass the time.Sound and fury signifying nothing?If not an exercise in rhetoric, what is debate on existence of a god?
Depends on the video game. Tell you what, I'd rather play through Fallen Order for the eleventh time than argue about whether God exists for the same amount of time.Much ado about nothing, but it beats playing video games to pass the time.Sound and fury signifying nothing?If not an exercise in rhetoric, what is debate on existence of a god?
A "god" is a product of our culture. There are no gods without humans and human culture. Moreover, if I have no awareness of something that is defined by its attributes, which includes magical abilities, what relevance has it to anything I experience? That's why I asked abut the Roman unknown god. Romans aren't really venerating "the unknown god" but rather venerating the unknown. How does one venerate and respect the unknown? They're just worshipping woo. Not knowing the answer to a question is one thing, but not even being aware there is a question is something entirely different. By worshipping woo as a god the Romans are just worshipping their culture. They've created another god based on their culture, not surprising.I think you are assigning a lot "possible" elements as "necessary" ones.
That is true, you may believe whatever you like. But no one is necesarily obliged to agree with your "observations" simply because you've made them. I feel like disentangling the ideas wrapped into your definitions would be taking the thread a bit off-topic, but I presume you know that you're siding with a fairly conservative-Christian-flavored portrayal of divinity, and have a bunch of arguments ready to go against the discursive inclusion of other viewpoints than the ones you've presented. I mean, do you really want to engage in a theological dispute over whether God is a "being" or not, in which I champion the cause of Hinduism despite not belonging to that tradition, and you play the role of the Baptist Christian despite not belonging to that tradition, just so we can waste time for a few hours and feel huffy and superior at each other by the end of it?I am not paid for my time here; I don't need to meet any professional standard. And insisting that I should strikes me as a diversionary tactic.
...The question "What is the basis for these definitions?" appears to me to be an attempt to avoid discussing their validity (or otherwise). What difference does it make whether they came from my life experience, or from the OED website, or from divine inspiration?
I am not paid for my time here; I don't need to meet any professional standard. And insisting that I should strikes me as a diversionary tactic.
I wasn't offended. I just don't agree, either. The idea that people redefine their theology on the fly as some sort of rhetorical ploy against atheists doesn't seem very realistic to me. I'm sure this happens occasionally, people being people, but the ineffability of God as fundamental property thereof is an idea neither obscure nor confined to internet debates. Nor, as I said, do I think that is illogical. Spiritual concepts in general are an ill fit for definition, hence why the religious life has always been such a wellspring of both fairly mystical and trippy writing and other forms of art aimed at expressing extraverbal sublimity. This may be frustrating for someone who wants to dismiss such ideas as a whole class and move on, but it's also an obvious thing that a lot of people hold to be pretty central to their perception of the cosmos, and you would expect nothing else if you were taking such claims and experiences seriously. If there is a world somehow beyond the mundane and material, however you understand it, why would you expect it to be anything other than difficult to adequately describe in everyday words? I've had mystical experiences myself, and can confirm that they are not easy to explain to someone else. That doesn't mean they are true, or facts, or metaphysical claims, etc, but they are certainly ineffable by nature, and that is not relevant to what framework we should best try to explain them with. Whether you want to believe that such and such "really happened" or not within your own epistemological framing has no bearing on whether I feel that words adequately capture the experience. It can be classed as a hallucination or a delusion or whatever makes you feel most comfortable, but that quality of ineffability will still hang around it.My only real contention with Poli had to do with whether ineffability was a bona fide component of the meaning or what I have been dismissing as a rhetorical dodge. I probably could have phrased it more diplomatically, but I usually realize such things after getting a negative reaction.
I wasn't offended. I just don't agree, either. The idea that people redefine their theology on the fly as some sort of rhetorical ploy against atheists doesn't seem very realistic to me. I'm sure this happens occasionally, people being people, but the ineffability of God as fundamental property thereof is an idea neither obscure nor confined to internet debates. Nor, as I said, do I think that is illogical. Spiritual concepts in general are an ill fit for definition, hence why the religious life has always been such a wellspring of both fairly mystical and trippy writing and other forms of art aimed at expressing extraverbal sublimity. This may be frustrating for someone who wants to dismiss such ideas as a whole class and move on, but it's also an obvious thing that a lot of people hold to be pretty central to their perception of the cosmos, and you would expect nothing else if you were taking such claims and experiences seriously. If there is a world somehow beyond the mundane and material, however you understand it, why would you expect it to be anything other than difficult to adequately describe in everyday words? I've had mystical experiences myself, and can confirm that they are not easy to explain to someone else. That doesn't mean they are true, or facts, or metaphysical claims, etc, but they are certainly ineffable by nature, and that is not relevant to what framework we should best try to explain them with. Whether you want to believe that such and such "really happened" or not within your own epistemological framing has no bearing on whether I feel that words adequately capture the experience. It can be classed as a hallucination or a delusion or whatever makes you feel most comfortable, but that quality of ineffability will still hang around it.My only real contention with Poli had to do with whether ineffability was a bona fide component of the meaning or what I have been dismissing as a rhetorical dodge. I probably could have phrased it more diplomatically, but I usually realize such things after getting a negative reaction.
I do not think our theories of language are all that far apart either, much though I am always revising and refining my thoughts on that matter. I do think it is something of an aside in this conversation, though.
Well, there's a first.just like you normal people
For the record the last time I played a video game was around 1984. Probably one of the arcade games like Asteroids. One exception if you count computer chess.Depends on the video game. Tell you what, I'd rather play through Fallen Order for the eleventh time than argue about whether God exists for the same amount of time.Much ado about nothing, but it beats playing video games to pass the time.Sound and fury signifying nothing?If not an exercise in rhetoric, what is debate on existence of a god?
Plus it's easy to believe in ghosts and other kinds of woo. I don't think you have to believe in woo to play video games.For many people religion is something to live by because it occupies their minds and gives purpose, like video games to many.
I think it's interesting some would make this a discussion about video games as if to trivialize the use and application of such. To me it's a discussion of computational-mathematical proof, and training the mind to reverse engineer game theories from rule sets (depending on application).For the record the last time I played a video game was around 1984. Probably one of the arcade games like Asteroids. One exception if you count computer chess.Depends on the video game. Tell you what, I'd rather play through Fallen Order for the eleventh time than argue about whether God exists for the same amount of time.Much ado about nothing, but it beats playing video games to pass the time.Sound and fury signifying nothing?If not an exercise in rhetoric, what is debate on existence of a god?
One aspect of religion not discussed is that it simply provides something to do for humans with our unbounded imagination and thinking. Here is Seattle teh NFL draft picks for the Seahawks was a big deal. Special local TV shows. Video games are pop culture, if yiu are into pop culture. The new Star Trek series will be very popular. Something new.
As I got into science and engineering and dealing with reality video games had no appeal, and reading fiction faded away. There is no reset ora do over in real life.
I heard it said the best entertainment is learning something new.
For many people religion is something to live by because it occupies their minds and gives purpose, like video games to many. Am I preaching to the choir?
You keep claiming "completely undefined". There's been a lot of definition in the thread.The question is nonsense: "Can you prove (read: logical deductive arguments) that a completely undefined thing exists"
I didn't need to read 25 pages of nonsense definitions of god to understand the word "proof" doesn't apply to ANYTHING outside of math and formal logic.You keep claiming "completely undefined". There's been a lot of definition in the thread.The question is nonsense: "Can you prove (read: logical deductive arguments) that a completely undefined thing exists"
There was a lot of definition going on in YOUR thread and you ignored that, too.
The answer is that it depends on the definition used.
I already provided a few examples of things that would prove the existence of "god: creator and operator of a system of physics".
Such entities are not immune to the requirement of a system of physics under which their existence as an object is rendered.
It would be fairly easy to prove they were such a thing by being able to operate outside of the system of physics they created for to modify it's momentary state.
Such modifications of momentary state would most certainly be the on-demand performance of events observable as "uncaused" or events which violate standard causality.
If they can't break the OUR laws of physics, they are not that thing.
And as proven, such entities are not necessarily anything but assholes, because I am such an entity with regards to operating and creating a system of physics, and I am an asshole.
The existence of a thing having a relationship to another thing is proof things may have that relationship between them.I didn't need to read 25 pages of nonsense definitions of god to understand the word "proof" doesn't apply to ANYTHING outside of math and formal logic.You keep claiming "completely undefined". There's been a lot of definition in the thread.The question is nonsense: "Can you prove (read: logical deductive arguments) that a completely undefined thing exists"
There was a lot of definition going on in YOUR thread and you ignored that, too.
The answer is that it depends on the definition used.
I already provided a few examples of things that would prove the existence of "god: creator and operator of a system of physics".
Such entities are not immune to the requirement of a system of physics under which their existence as an object is rendered.
It would be fairly easy to prove they were such a thing by being able to operate outside of the system of physics they created for to modify it's momentary state.
Such modifications of momentary state would most certainly be the on-demand performance of events observable as "uncaused" or events which violate standard causality.
If they can't break the OUR laws of physics, they are not that thing.
And as proven, such entities are not necessarily anything but assholes, because I am such an entity with regards to operating and creating a system of physics, and I am an asshole.
How would you differentiate this from, say, an alien of some form coming down from space wearing a number of identical skin suits, meat drones, holograms, or whatever, claiming it was Jesus, and getting us to give it something-or-other or simply trolling the shit out of us with it like "look at these fucking suckers"?I know I posted one before in here, but what are the chances that Jesus Christ will come down from heaven, then visit all cultures?
Maybe that would do it for me, but also maybe not either.
My first question would be what happened to coming back in 2000?
Either that or someone who looks like what Jesus is suppose to look like, stealing everything and making claims that they are Jesus Christ.How would you differentiate this from, say, an alien of some form coming down from space wearing a number of identical skin suits, meat drones, holograms, or whatever, claiming it was Jesus, and getting us to give it something-or-other or simply trolling the shit out of us with it like "look at these fucking suckers"?I know I posted one before in here, but what are the chances that Jesus Christ will come down from heaven, then visit all cultures?
Maybe that would do it for me, but also maybe not either.
My first question would be what happened to coming back in 2000?
Kinda my point. It would have to be something... Well, in the stupid video game that I play where I am exactly the thing that I describe, some thing that has spun up a simulation of some kind and administrates it and occasionally rolls an avatar into existence.Either that or someone who looks like what Jesus is suppose to look like, stealing everything and making claims that they are Jesus Christ.How would you differentiate this from, say, an alien of some form coming down from space wearing a number of identical skin suits, meat drones, holograms, or whatever, claiming it was Jesus, and getting us to give it something-or-other or simply trolling the shit out of us with it like "look at these fucking suckers"?I know I posted one before in here, but what are the chances that Jesus Christ will come down from heaven, then visit all cultures?
Maybe that would do it for me, but also maybe not either.
My first question would be what happened to coming back in 2000?
Kinda my point. It would have to be something... Well, in the stupid video game that I play where I am exactly the thing that I describe, some thing that has spun up a simulation of some kind and administrates it and occasionally rolls an avatar into existence.Either that or someone who looks like what Jesus is suppose to look like, stealing everything and making claims that they are Jesus Christ.How would you differentiate this from, say, an alien of some form coming down from space wearing a number of identical skin suits, meat drones, holograms, or whatever, claiming it was Jesus, and getting us to give it something-or-other or simply trolling the shit out of us with it like "look at these fucking suckers"?I know I posted one before in here, but what are the chances that Jesus Christ will come down from heaven, then visit all cultures?
Maybe that would do it for me, but also maybe not either.
My first question would be what happened to coming back in 2000?
Assuming I was an entity similar to what I am now, but sitting in a place where I have a machine running "Universe: Slaves to Allah" or whatever instead of "Dwarf Fortress: Slaves of Armok", I could prove it by spinning up a body into existence ex-nihlo without something Very Bad happening as a result, pulling open the debug console, and doing some ridiculous shit that would appear entirely uncaused, that if done through normal physical means, would probably have side effects like exploding the earth, or producing a gravity wave that would implode it.
It would take something like that to prove it to me.
It clearly doesn't have to be me spinning up a simulation or whatever, but yes whoever it is who makes claims of such would have to prove it by violating causality wantonly.Kinda my point. It would have to be something... Well, in the stupid video game that I play where I am exactly the thing that I describe, some thing that has spun up a simulation of some kind and administrates it and occasionally rolls an avatar into existence.Either that or someone who looks like what Jesus is suppose to look like, stealing everything and making claims that they are Jesus Christ.How would you differentiate this from, say, an alien of some form coming down from space wearing a number of identical skin suits, meat drones, holograms, or whatever, claiming it was Jesus, and getting us to give it something-or-other or simply trolling the shit out of us with it like "look at these fucking suckers"?I know I posted one before in here, but what are the chances that Jesus Christ will come down from heaven, then visit all cultures?
Maybe that would do it for me, but also maybe not either.
My first question would be what happened to coming back in 2000?
Assuming I was an entity similar to what I am now, but sitting in a place where I have a machine running "Universe: Slaves to Allah" or whatever instead of "Dwarf Fortress: Slaves of Armok", I could prove it by spinning up a body into existence ex-nihlo without something Very Bad happening as a result, pulling open the debug console, and doing some ridiculous shit that would appear entirely uncaused, that if done through normal physical means, would probably have side effects like exploding the earth, or producing a gravity wave that would implode it.
It would take something like that to prove it to me.
For such a thing to be proved to you, It would need to be YOU who's doing the spinning up the existence of some universe? Obviously, you'll NEVER get THAT level of proof from anyone else, the usual religious belief claims, which would seem so so minor and trivial compared to your method for proof.
Something that I've read on the net...So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?
I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.
Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?
For me, all those stories would not mean a thing. Stories are stories. What it would take for me to believe in any anthropomorphic god is an act of God. The way that act of God would be defined is 'something that makes me believe.So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?
I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.
Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?
Yea, there's just nothing special in the bible. God could have told his followers to not own a slave. He didn't. In fact, he upheld the tradition and spelled out how certain slaves should be treated. There's no special scientific knowledge in the bible that is special or unknown to other peoples. In fact, most of the scientific knowledge in the bible is bonkers. Turn the other cheek, love your neighbor, and etc were all commonly held tenants in other older religions. There's nothing special about the bible...Something that I've read on the net...So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?
I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.
Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?
What would it take to convince me that the Bible is divinely inspired? A passage like this:
"And the Earth moved in a great circle around the sun, held in place by the sun's mass. And the circle was not perfect, but was longer in one direction than the perpendicular, and the passage of the Earth swept out equal areas in equal times. And the sun shone with the light of its tiniest parts coming together."
Such a passage speaks fairly clearly of:
1. Heliocentric solar system
2. Gravity caused by mass
3. Elliptical orbits
4. Kepler's Law of equal areas
5. Nuclear fusion in the sun.
And there's no way at all people living thousands of years ago could possibly have known it.