08 Dec 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHit's not a good point. it's a pointless point. he doesn't communicate anything. nobody knows what his point is. this is not a debate, this is an unfinished general question with a thousand possible answers.
Good point.
how about i add a question myself:
if you had red hair... what would you do tomorrow?
08 Dec 10
Originally posted by josephwFor starters I would have to define God, and then I would have to recognize the existence of this specific epistemic object. This epistemic object (God) would have to be identical to a completely expressible observer that contains an exchangeable and finite packet of physical information
How would you know?
😵
08 Dec 10
Originally posted by black beetleThen you'd have to concede you, as a non-supernatural being, have no basis for defining things which are supernatural; and so retract everything you claimed.
For starters I would have to define God, and then I would have to recognize the existence of this specific epistemic object. This epistemic object (God) would have to be identical to a completely expressible observer that contains an exchangeable and finite packet of physical information
😵
08 Dec 10
Originally posted by AgergFor the sake of the conversation I would agree to accept all the religious definitions of a God/ Creator that a theist will offer during her/ his struggle to establish this entity as a physically existent epistemic object. My main concern is not these assertions per se, for they are easily discarded as baseless.
Then you'd have to concede you, as a non-supernatural being, have no basis for defining things which are supernatural; and so retract everything you claimed.
My problem is that I would still lack of the specific epistemic instruments that they would enable me to access and, therefore, to recognize the existence of that specific God/ Creator in case this entity was really existent
😵
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziI beg to differ--- or, at least, ask very politely to disagree.
it's not a good point. it's a pointless point. he doesn't communicate anything. nobody knows what his point is. this is not a debate, this is an unfinished general question with a thousand possible answers.
how about i add a question myself:
if you had red hair... what would you do tomorrow?
I fail to see how a thousand possible answers would in any way diminish the question to meaninglessness. Also, I highly doubt that we could come up with anywhere near one hundred possible answers, let alone ten times that amount.
Imagining there was a God/Creator is the first step, and that doesn't seem to be all that absurd of a proposition, given that atheists are operating under the assumption that theists have done this very thing: imagined something they consider non-existent.
The second step (considering how one would perceive God/Creator) is more complex, but nonetheless, a worthy thought experiment for both atheist and theist.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHthe purpose of communication is to communicate something. what does he communicate by asking a general question, without even properly defining the concepts in that question.
I beg to differ--- or, at least, ask very politely to disagree.
I fail to see how a thousand possible answers would in any way diminish the question to meaninglessness. Also, I highly doubt that we could come up with anywhere near one hundred possible answers, let alone ten times that amount.
[b]Imagining there was a God/Creator is the first ste ...[text shortened]... tor) is more complex, but nonetheless, a worthy thought experiment for both atheist and theist.[/b]
what is god/creator? what would "know" imply? what is a good answer? is there a single good answer or all may be good? can i say "i know there is a god because rasberry jam tastes so good"?
if this is intended as a creative exercise like "how do you know your mommy loves you" from kindergarten, by all means carry. but this is not a debate. nor can it be advanced to a conclusion. and certainly it won't turn into a "god is definitely real because of X's brilliant post"
12 Dec 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziDon't be ridiculous. Do I have to go back to elemental ideas and explain what is meant be "God"?
the purpose of communication is to communicate something. what does he communicate by asking a general question, without even properly defining the concepts in that question.
what is god/creator? what would "know" imply? what is a good answer? is there a single good answer or all may be good? can i say "i know there is a god because rasberry jam tastes ...[text shortened]... certainly it won't turn into a "god is definitely real because of X's brilliant post"
You know what "God" means just as all the rest of you.
I am persuaded that whenever an atheist is confronted with a question that stumps them they resort to obfuscation.
A simple question: If there were a God/creator, how would you know?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Dec 10
Originally posted by AgergThen you'd have to concede you, as a non-supernatural being, have no basis for defining things which are supernatural; and so retract everything you claimed.
Then you'd have to concede you, as a non-supernatural being, have no basis for defining things which are supernatural; and so retract everything you claimed.
That's just silly. It is the speaker who defines the words he uses. So by defining 'supernatural', he is not forcing some a priori notion of a supernatural being into something which it is not, as though some coercive linguistic act could compel God into something else; rather, the speaker is simply specifying, out of a range of objects, which one he refers to by the term 'supernatural'. It is quite reasonable then, when we interrogate whether a supernatural being exists, to demand some clarification of what constitutes supernatural, just in order to preempt confusion and focus the conversation.
12 Dec 10
6 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KThis is my bone of contention with any statements about the supernatural, statements about god etc... if it isn't natural, if there is no means to reliably gather any qualitative data that correlates with other understood phenomenon. if the only means you have to test for or perceive the physical/natural manifestation of supernatural phenomenon is with your senses, philosophical musing, or material apparatus; then whatever definitions one asserts about the supernatural is purely conjecture, and have no more value than one or an infinite other conjectures.
[b]Then you'd have to concede you, as a non-supernatural being, have no basis for defining things which are supernatural; and so retract everything you claimed.
That's just silly. It is the speaker who defines the words he uses. So by defining 'supernatural', he is not forcing some a priori notion of a supernatural being into something t constitutes supernatural, just in order to preempt confusion and focus the conversation.[/b]
About the only thing one can reliably say about the supernatural is that any events/things which qualify for being labelled that term fail to act in accordance with natural laws *in some way*. Any concrete stipulation of what a supernatural thing can do is baseless.
Some people hold the view a creator of the universe (or god(s)) should be omnipotent, I say it needs only have the capability of facilitating the creation of at least one universe (somehow), and say nothing about it's other capabilities.
Some say it should be a good being, I say this is not necessary. Indeed I have no problems supposing a god could exist that, by any human standards, is wholly evil.
Of course if want wishes to just suppose that some supernatural entity exists without any motivation for discussing it, fully aware that neither he/she or their audience believes such an entity exists then though a slightly pointless exercise your objection would stand.
13 Dec 10
Originally posted by AgergHow do you know you exist?
This is my bone of contention with any statements about the supernatural, statements about god etc... if it isn't natural, if there is no means to reliably gather any qualitative data that correlates with other understood phenomenon. if the only means you have to test for or perceive the physical/natural manifestation of supernatural phenomenon is with your se ...[text shortened]... es such an entity exists then though a slightly pointless exercise your objection would stand.
By your senses, right?
Then why can't your senses tell you there is a creator by the existence of creation?
Why assume that the universe came into existence without a cause?
13 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwNeither I nor anyone else is really justified in asserting how the universe was caused...for all we know there might exist some multiverse, of which our universe is just one transient little bubble...or perhaps there exists some god who names itself Snafefu 7 and likes playing planet rugby with it's other supernatural pals and so makes universes for no reason other than this. Who can possibly know???
How do you know you exist?
By your senses, right?
Then why can't your senses tell you there is a creator by the existence of creation?
Why assume that the universe came into existence without a cause?
As for knowing I exist, I use the physical senses I am imbued with and assert that so far as I can detect, I am physical being. If there is some supernatural facet of myself then it will remain forever enshrouded from my perception so long as my senses function so as to receive/process only physical inputs.