yes, but...
Sorry to bore you about god.
But it's important.
There is or isn't a god.
If it's purely a matter of belief (and let's remember that I distinguish absolutely between believing and knowing), then I'm happy to let it rest with the believer as long as the believer does not claim to know.
It's when the believer claims to know that I get a bit twitchy...
And of course, as readers of this blog know only too well, it's atheists who claim to know that there is no god who get on my goat most. If only they were happy admit that they merely BELIEVE that there is no god I could leave them alone.
But no, the disingenuous little creeps have to claim to KNOW, whilst failing to offer any acceptable proof for their certainty. That's what gets me - their denial that they too are mere believers... Believers in the non-existence of god.
What's wrong with leaving it at that? The answer is obvious: If they admitted they too are acting on faith alone, their very grounds for attacking and discrediting their opposite numbers would evaporate...
Yes, make no mistake about it, atheists are as fundamentalist and bigoted about their beliefs as the believers they so like to invalidate.
Is anyone still reading this? I doubt it, but I feel a lot better now... :-)
But how long will my bliss last?
But it's important.
There is or isn't a god.
If it's purely a matter of belief (and let's remember that I distinguish absolutely between believing and knowing), then I'm happy to let it rest with the believer as long as the believer does not claim to know.
It's when the believer claims to know that I get a bit twitchy...
And of course, as readers of this blog know only too well, it's atheists who claim to know that there is no god who get on my goat most. If only they were happy admit that they merely BELIEVE that there is no god I could leave them alone.
But no, the disingenuous little creeps have to claim to KNOW, whilst failing to offer any acceptable proof for their certainty. That's what gets me - their denial that they too are mere believers... Believers in the non-existence of god.
What's wrong with leaving it at that? The answer is obvious: If they admitted they too are acting on faith alone, their very grounds for attacking and discrediting their opposite numbers would evaporate...
Yes, make no mistake about it, atheists are as fundamentalist and bigoted about their beliefs as the believers they so like to invalidate.
Is anyone still reading this? I doubt it, but I feel a lot better now... :-)
But how long will my bliss last?
posted by The Editor at
11:41 PM
33 Comments:
I read when you post.
I just don't care for hanging by my thumbs until you do.
The way I understand it, there are two kinds of believer...and you and I are neither kind. One cannot bear the hint of doubt that clings to a belief that is not condoned with the additional category of being knowledge. Such folk must fool themselves that their belief has a reality greater than the rocks they stub their toe on, the chair they sit in. And that leaves them no out but to hate or pity the unbelievers. They don't, they CAN'T, make your distinction work.
The other flavor are forced to hold the multiple possibilities in mind and manage it all with a glue of hope holding their heads together. They are vulnerable, and can be sensitive to most arguments but not accepting of many. At bottom, they have a tacit admission that they do not know and that makes them far more palatable company.
JahTeh, as always, you have a wonderful way with words. But fear not. Although the last few vestages of sanity scream for me to shut the blog down, I am hopelessly addicted to talking shit. And what better place to quarantine that shit, but in this blog...
ODDD_1, The problem with my distinction is that there is huge room for debate about what constitutes knowing. A debate deluded believers* tend to avoid like the plague...
* A deluded believer is one who believes he knows when in fact he merely believes, but is so convinced of his knowingness that he dismisses the need to debate it.
We had one of these in here recently...
God be w' ye, Gerry.
(conditional, of course, on whatever one conceives she, he, it or them - to be).
If there is a god, I have no idea as to it's purpose or intention. From what I have observed, if it exists, it is leads a pointless existence and ought to top itself. And often I think I should join it...
Now THERE's a thought... Is god a projection?
Gerry, you're a dear man, but you do write a lot of overheated drivel:
"..atheists are as fundamentalist and bigoted about their beliefs as the believers they so like to invalidate."
I'm an atheist: that merely means that I don't believe in God. I've been participating in debate about it for sixty years and so far I am unconvinced by the theist arguments. What's bigoted about that?
Come visit with us, Gerry and all you others, and learn the REAL truth!! There is no time left for debate!!
Praise Him!
Yours in Christ
Tony, you Pommie bastard!!!
Welcome back!!! :-)
Alas, I fear it won't be long before I say something which you'll take umbridge at and go flouncing away again (appauded loudly by the vast majority of humankind for doing so.) ;-)
Now, where was I... Oh yes...
Atheists being bigots too...
This comment is linked to the fact that I have previously declared that "faith" is nothing but institutionalised bigotry (made compulsory by the likes of the Inquisition and the Taliban, and Stalin, and Mao, and Pol Pot, etc.) and that all atheists (or at least those who remain atheists after a rigorous debate involving logic and rational thinking), by virtue of their belief in the nonexistence of god, and their refusal to budge from their faith, are just as bigoted as the religious bigots many of them like to condemn.
In other words, old boy, I've been arguing , from the outset, that the only logically valid position one can take on the subject of god is the position of agnosticism.
I argue that all else is based on some kind of faith in some kind of belief, and one's refusal to recant this belief marks one as a bigot (or "one of the faithful" if you prefer.)
Will that be all? Or would you like a debate with that?
George, you shit-stirring creature of Tony's impish imagination, bugger off.
Have a nice day now, y'all...
And is it important to take the agnostic position? You betcha!
All else are pathways towards religious or secular tyranny.
Agnosticism acknowledges that one's philosophical position is unverifiable, therefore logically preventing one from issuing fatwas or pontifications upon those of different beliefs.
It is the position which begs tolerance for other belief systems.
It is the position which avoids the absolutism inherent in the dogmas of those who would proscribe beliefs other than their own.
Hi Gerry,
Regards this statement:
"And is it important to take the agnostic position? You betcha! .... Agnosticism acknowledges that one's philosophical position is unverifiable"
....Are you verifying that it's important to take this position?
Perhaps you believe it's important, and cannot verify it is so? Or do you know it's important, and can verify it? Which is it?
None of those cop-outs like, "I'm not a real thinker, so I can make sweeping generalisations".......!
Kelly
Kelly, I don't know if you saw them, but wrote (and deleted) two unsatisfactory comments before this attempt.
You are very persistent.
I guess I should have added "regarding god" after "philosophical position."
I'm not verifying anything. I'm expressing my opinion.
And my opinion is that the existence of god/gods can be neither proven or disproven, and that any certainty one has on either position is rooted in belief and not empirical evidence. You have yet to convince me otherwise, Kelly.
Hi Gerry,
Persistence can pay off ;)
I didn't see any earlier two posts, now deleted. However, the link to our discussion as uploaded to my homepage isn't there any longer.
Ok, would you grant that it is reasonable to believe that A=A?
Would you say it's unreasonable to believe that a part of something is the same as the whole?
That is, some beliefs are reasonable and wholly logical, and some beliefs are not..... ?
Kelly
Regards the existence or not of God, it really comes down to how God is defined.
That's the whole crux of the problem.
If I define God as Eternal, Almighty, and the Creator of all things, then necessarily God is the Infinite. Only the Infinite is not bounded, such as by time, or other things. The Infinite *is* everything.
On the other hand, if I use the above definition, and then say, the Infinite is bounded by having a certain finite quality, then I'm up the creek - such a God is a delusion.
Kelly
Kelly, I was in a foul mood that day and I deleted your other comment because it contained my full name (something which I try to minimise on the internet.) As it contained not much else, little harm was done by deleting it.
Yes, since A=A, it is reasonable to believe it...
However, when one says that oranges equal apples because A=A, then I get a tad suspicious...
In other words, what are you having the first A and the second A mean, and are they REALLY the same thing?
Yes, I would say that it's unreasonable to believe that a part of something is the same as the whole. I would also say that it's unreasonable to believe that the whole cannot include a part of itself which is nothing like the whole. e.g. a car is not a gear, but a car has gears in its parts.
And yes, it is precisely BECAUSE it comes down to how God is defined that it is pointless, logically, to try to argue that God does not exist. Show me two believers and I'll show you two different definitions of God. Are you getting this yet?
About your finite/infinite line of argument, I will point out again that if the infinite contains EVERYTHING, then it contains all things finite.
I do not say that the infinite is BOUNDED BY "a certain finite quality", I say that the infinite CAN INCLUDE an entity which has "a certain finite quality". (The car is not a gear, but the car contains gears.)
So yes, you ARE up the creek, logically speaking. ;-)
I assume you are well acquainted with the fallacies of logic?
Hi Gerry,
Would you like to have your first name only as the reference to our discussion, within my website? I tend to always use my full name when discussing my philosophical views, as it gives others the sense that they're dealing with a real human being. Pseudonyms seem wispy and disembodied.
Gerry: Show me two believers and I'll show you two different definitions of God.
It comes down to whether the definition is logical or not.
Gerry: if the infinite contains EVERYTHING, then it contains all things finite.
That's right. But it doesn't contain what illogical definitions try to point to, because such things aren't really there.
For instance, the Infinite doesn't contain a car that is a gear.
Similarly, the Infinite doesn't contain what an illogical definition of God points to. People may believe it does, because they want a friend, or something to revere.
Kelly
Kelly, what we're running is The New Media and I don't think I should tell you what you should or should not do on your website. You decide. Whether I'm happy or unhappy about what you publish is my problem, not yours. I believe in a free media.
Now, back to the topic du jour:
Depends what you mean by "logical", but until you slay me with superior logic, I'll argue that a definition of God does not need to be logical. What I mean is that just because, by a particular definition of logic, some definintion of God appears illogical, it does not therefore follow that a God thus defined cannot exist.
Lots of things were perceived to be illogical until their existence was verified. These things nevertheless existed during the time in which they were seen to be illogical.
Logic is not an absolute thing - merely an agreed-upon thing. Just because we agree upon something, it does not follow that our agreement is required before something can exist.
Werner Erhard once said "Man keeps looking for a truth which fits his reality. Given his reality, the truth doesn't fit." Philosophically, his aphorism is a huge practical joke because we will be arguing amongst ourselves forever about what is meant by "truth" and what is meant by "reality". It's also a huge joke because it rings "true" to everyone, irrespective of their "truth" or their "reality". Absolutists love it.
Just because you deem something to be illogical, it doesn't therefore mean it cannot exist. At best you can say "For ME it is not there." All you can ever speak about is your own "truths" and your own "reality", and these are called your beliefs.
Absolute truths only exist as banalities such as "it rained today", or "he hit me with a baseball bat". (Assuming of course that it rained today or that he hit me with a baseball bat.)
You said: "For instance, the Infinite doesn't contain a car that is a gear." You've twisted my metaphor. The car was a meatphor for the infinite, the gear was a metaphor for the finite. You need to go back an read that bit within the context it was presented. And anyway, the infinite MUST contain a car which is a gear or it is not the infinite, it is the finite.
"the Infinite doesn't contain what an illogical definition of God points to."
Oh yeah? Really? Then please define "truth", "reality" and "logical".
And when you've finished that, please explain to me why something which YOU don't think is true, or something which YOU don't think is real, or something which YOU don't think is logical, cannot therefore exist. In other words, show me that you are God. For surely you must be God if a thing can only exist if YOU deem it to be true, real or logical.
Come on, Godess... I'm waiting, Godess...
[snickerrrrrr]
[aside: "And they think they know a thing or two about philosophy... The hubris... The hubris..."]
Hi Gerry,
> please define "truth", "reality" and "logical".
In our previous discussion, I mentioned a few times the law of identity:
A = A
(a thing is what it is)
This is the foundation of logic.
A definition is logical if it doesn't contradict this law. For instance, if a gear is defined as a part of a car (A), then it is illogical to say that a gear is the whole car (other than A, or not-A).
Truth is found through logic. Thus, it is false to say a thing (any A) is not itself (not-A), and true to say it is itself.
Reality is what is, and not what is not.
> All you can ever speak about is your own "truths" and your own "reality", and these are called your beliefs.
Here you are speaking about a truth that is given out as true for everyone. It contradicts itself.
People can speak about absolute truths that are true for everyone. For example:
"1 + 1 = 2"
"Something is happening"
"A=A"
"A part is not the whole"
"A myth is something made-up"
and so forth.
"It rained today" and "he hit me on the head with a baseball bat" are not absolute truths. These are scientific hypotheses, being contingent on empirical data.
For instance, rain is defined using a number of causes (water falling from clouds), and each of these causes have causes (molecular structure, atmospheric pressure, gravity, the existence of the ocean, sun, moon, etc.) and their causes have causes, ad infinitum. Defining any these things absolutely is impossible, as any scientist would see. So the appearance of rain is seen as a provisional interpretation awaiting new evidence.
Thus, 'it rained today' or the like, is contingent on countless other pieces of contingent data, so it can never be an absolute truth. Meteorologists struggle to refine the methods of measurement, for ever-increasing accuracy, and yet they cannot speak with absolute accuracy.
The margin of error in forecasting is no different from a man who must rely on his senses to see whether it has rained. What he goes by are signs in the environment, but his interpretation of those signs cannot be certain. He cannot be certain what has caused those signs, so he cannot be certain of their identity.
Yet 'it rained today' is itself exactly what it is, and that is absolutely true. It requires no empirical data, nor interpretation, but only the instantaneous recognition of itself.
This is to indicate the difference between scientific hypotheses and logical truths.
People rarely define 'God' using a scientific hypothesis, but using an absolutist statement. That is why I am focussing on logic, not science here in our discussion.
Kelly
Kelly, if logic is a process of inference, and inference is the act or process of deriving a conclusion based solely on what one already knows, then all one can hope to achieve through logic is to conclude that one cannot say whether God exists or not. At best one can only say that there is no knowledge supporting the conclusion that God exists.
To assert that God (irrespective of how you define God) cannot exist because there is no acceptable knowledge supporting the conclusion that such a God exists, is a fallacy of logic.
You're waffling pseudo-logical flim-flam, Kelly.
I'll say it again for you, as simply as I can:
The absence of a logical argument for the existence of God does not disprove the existence of God.
An illogical argument does not mean something is not true, it just means your reasons for claiming it is true are not valid. It doesn't mean it's not true, it just means you lack valid reasons for claiming it is true.
You cannot say something is false because it has not been proven to be true.
So, about God, the best you can say is that no logical argument for God's existence has been presented to you. You cannot say that therefore God does not exist.
Before science was able to prove that the world was round, it was thought to be flat. The people of the flat-earth era quite rightly argued that no logical reason existed (back then) that the world was round. Back then it swas illogical to think of the world as round. Yet, all the while, the world was round. It was illogical, but it was round.
Logic has its limitations, Kelly, and you are taking logic to where it cannot logically be taken.
God may or may not exist. We are not yet aware that any logical argument supporting the existence of God exists. We cannot say that no logical argument will ever be found. We cannot say that the absence of a logical argument is proof for non-existence.
That is why agnosticism is the true skeptic's position regarding God. Anything else is a form of belief and not based on logic.
It's you who is being illogical, Kelly.
Hi Gerry,
>An illogical argument does not mean something is not true, it just means your reasons for claiming it is true are not valid.
Once again: I'm talking about God as most people define it. Namely, something personal and eternal.
That *definition* is the whole crux of the problem. How can it possibly exist, if it is inherently illogical?
At basis, the definition is:
1. not-finite (eternal means 'not bounded by time')
and
2. finite (personal).
Meaning, a thing that is by definition finite and by definition not-finite.
It is like saying, "Yes", then "I deny I said 'Yes'". Or like saying, "This is not happening".
Logic is really simple. It is simply that a thing is what it is. The above definition of God is anti-logic.
Kelly
Kelly, you're having the term "personal" equate with "finite".
Could the term "personal" mean something else to others?
Please try to understand what I'm saying in the second last paragraph in my previous comment.
Sorry Gerry, I can see an extra step in there, that I should explain.
The word 'personal' itself, usually doesn't mean 'finite'. It means 'relating to a person'.
A person usually means a human being. A human being isn't everything, and stops short of being something else. In that sense, it is finite. So 'personal' usually refers to something that is finite.
But sure, 'personal' can have no such connotations. It could mean 'relating to the Infinite'. That's an extremely unusual meaning for 'personal'.
And also, 'impersonal' could mean something finite. For example, Paul Davies believes God is an impersonal God. Make no mistake, for him 'God' doesn't mean the non-finite, but definitely something finite and distinguishable from something else.
So, again, it all comes down to definitions. The meaning, and what we understand something to be, comes from definitions.
So we could say the Gods in which most people believe, are actually illogical and mysterious delusions. That are their existence - so long as the definitions are so.
Kelly
Yes, but... doesn't the infinite include ALL things finite? And if so, then coudn't the infinite INCLUDE a finite god amongst its bag of goodies?
"So we could say the Gods in which most people believe, are actually illogical and mysterious delusions." As soon as you begin a sentence with "we could say..." you're peddling logical flim flam.
e.g. "We could say that cows have five legs."
And you keep sidestepping (avoiding?) the assertion I have repeatedly made which is that just because a belief has not yet been logically verified, it does not follow that it cannot be true. All we can say is that the (logical) truth of such a belief has yet to be sucessfully logically argued.
If you want to assert that there is no god, the onus of proof lies with you, as the asserter. I have yet to see you put forth a logical argument for why there is no god (even a "personal" one.)
Also you have already conceded that you would accept other definitions of god as being possibly true, therefore we are only arguing about WHICH definition of god is acceptable to you. This utterly demolishes your position of atheism.
I'm going to take this one step at a time. Let's get back to basics.
A thing exists, by definition. Do you agree with that?
So existence is relative to things.
Or do you have a different definition for 'existence'?
If not, would you also accept that it is not possible, because of the definition for existence, for 'not-thing' to exist?
----------
We're looking at definitions here, which is a stage prior to belief.
Definitional truths are true by nature of being logical, ie. not internally contradictory.
It's of paramount importance to establish first the nature of definitional truths.
Only then we can start talking about certainty in regards to existence of Gods, including certainty of uncertainty (agnosticism).
Kelly
The main point to get is:
If a definition is internally contradictory, then it will *never* be valid, never.
Because logic cannot ever *create* an internal contradiction. By its very nature, it just can't.
A=A.
It cannot possibly present a thing as other than what it is. A thing is what it is, not what it is not. No internal contradictions possible.
The reason that a definitional 'truth' that has internal contradiction will never be logically argued, is *because* it has internal contradiction.
Logic just does not allow for such.
And reality is based on logic.
What is, is.
Reality is never not.
----
Yes, the Infinite can create finite gods, such as an idol. It has done so plenty of times, and will again.
But if the idol is defined as infinite, meaning, not-finite, then that is a lie. It is just a false belief. It is not real.
It will never, ever be true.
It is only a deluded belief, created for psychological comfort.
Kelly
Yes, Kelly, if a thing exists, it exists.
What are you having "thing" mean?
Is a soul/ghost/spirit a "thing"?
Is the placebo effect a "thing"?
Is a dream a "thing"?
Are you limiting your definition of "reality" to materialistic boundaries?
I think your term "definitional truth" is a straw man.
A definition merely defines a meaning. It does not necessarily imply truth or falsehood. The definition of a Yeti is the definition of a Yeti, whether we ever find one or not. Truth has nothing to do with it.
Logic is just a set of rules by which we can claim to KNOW things materialistically. It is limited to materialistic ways of knowing.
Logic cannot, and does not, have anything to say about the metaphysical. God is in the realm of the metaphysical. Trying apply the rules of logic to the metaphysical is in itself an illogical process.
So, until I know what you mean by "things", I cannot say whether "existence is relative to things".
I could define existence as "what is". A dream is. If existence is relative to things, then a dream is a thing.
There are many concepts of reality. Materialistic concepts of reality are subservient to logic. Others are not.
The reality in which god exists is not the materialistic reality. You are imposing the rules for one type of reality onto another. I call that The Skeptics' Scam.
You appear to have been brainwashed by the Skeptic religion - the religion of materialism.
I'm starting to enjoy this...
Glad you're starting to enjoy this discussion, Gerry. Thinking that gets to the heart of all things is a good use of time and energy.
As I see it, your reply is made of three points:
1. what is a thing? (what exists ?)
2. what is reality? (is it of things - or not)?
3. how does one know one's answers to these questions are true and reliable?
I answer them this way:
1. a thing is the most basic abstraction to cover any actuality or possibility that can be imagined in any consciousness, anywhere, anytime, anyplace.
2. reality is that which is, e.g. 'what is happening now is a reality, even if it is a dream'. Thus reality is of things.
3. logic is the intellectual process of identifying a thing as what it truly is. (A=A).
E.g.
what is happening right now = what is happening right now
(Illogic contradicts A=A and pretends that what is not, is, or that what is, is not. Illogic shows a weak relationship with truth.)
But the true identity of anything comes after creating a definition. All definitions are made-up.
E.g.
"what is happening right now" is created out of meanings like:
What is = a thing (it appears to mind)
Happening = it is the case
Right now = immediate
Putting these meanings together, the definition is tested for internal validity using deductive reasoning:
Can what appears to mind not be the case? No, it is the case.
Can what appears to mind not be immediate? No, it is immediate.
Can what is immediate not be the case? No, it is the case.
Thus, the definition is tested as valid, meaning: logical, true.
(And, in turn, an illogical definition would make an error in creating the definition or in some step in the deductive reasoning process.)
-------------------------
To answer your statement about logic being relevant to materialistic things only:
what a non-materialistic thing is, is defined relative to a materialistic thing. So, first the materialistic thing must be defined, such as in the following example:
"A materialistic thing is ..." (fill in the dots with definition)
(This definition stands as a 'truth' but need no external references. Definitional truths are like '1+1=2' or 'a bachelor is an unmarried man'. Its meaning is true because it has no internal contradictions, and complies with A=A.)
(A=A is the basis of logic, which is the law of identity).
Then, by using the process of deductive reasoning, the definition for 'non-materialistic thing' is created:
Reasoning: "Can a non-materialistic thing be identical with a materialistic thing, having exactly the same properties and definition? No, it cannot. It is not a materialistic thing."
(Also uses A=A)
If one thinks a bit about this, then one will see there is no realm of any reality where logic or deductive reasoning is irrelevant or unreliable.
Kelly
Kelly, my agnositc friend (who thinks she's an atheist), yes, I am enjoying this discussion.
You keep going back to this a=a thing. How is that relevant to whether there is a god or not? I'm confused.
Materialism and metaphysics:
Logic is, as far as I can see, firmly restricted to the realm of materialism.
The whole god thing dwells entirely in the metaphysical realm.
As I understand it, they are worlds apart.
Don't get me wrong, Kelly. I'm not arguing that there is a god. I'm saying that logic and/or the laws of physics are irrelevant in metaphysical debates about the existence (or otherwise) of god.
Hi Gerry,
I'm very sorry for the delay in responding to your post.
Your question is a simple one and easy to answer. But I'm going to answer it in the Philosoph-e Cafe, instead of here.
http://www.philosophecafe.yuku.com
I think people will find this discussion, which I value as very important, more easily using the Yuku board search. I am trying to advertise it. I hope you are happy to continue this discussion there.
Kelly
Fair enough, but I reserve the right to crosspost stuff back to here as I see fit.
Okay, let's see how it goes.
I've made a reply over at the e-cafe.
Also, is it acceptable to you if our discussion, including our full names, is included in a literary journal I'm producing (online mostly)?
I will send you a draft for you to comment on, before publishing.
I'd rather you only referred to me by my first name only. But as I said, it's your call. If you choose to use my full name, I cannot and would not seek to stop you.
Gerry,
It should be fixed now I think.
KJ
That is, the Philosoph-e Cafe title for our discussion should be fixed now.
It's called "Reason and God (discussion with Gerry)".
I haven't got the literary journal pieced together in my thoughts yet. Tossing up whether to call it Thinker's Advertiser or The Brain Fertilizer.....
Kelly
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========