I don't get it...

[Kevin Beal]

*getting sucked in!*

 

"As we currently understand it" has nothing to do with what is true. If we are mistaken and there is better information out there then the proposition was untrue. Something doesn't suddenly become true or untrue simply because people do or don't accept it. For something to be true, it has to actually be true, regardless of what people think about it.

 

What is true is what accurately describes reality and what is logically consistent. Something that is a contradiction (for example) cannot exist by definition or be true because it simultaneously asserts X and not X at the same time and in the same respect. The proposition itself is saying that it is untrue, not some outside observer commenting on that proposition. If it ends up existing or being true, then it's not actually a contradiction and some error in logic was made.

 

There may be some respect in which we say that a given proposition is true, like through metaphor or whatever else that may not technically be the case (e.x. "my buddy and I are two peas in a pod"), but truth describes everything according to the same standards of logical consistency. If you have a standard of truth that says that logically inconsistent things are true, then you are just simply wrong.

 

The proposition "my god exists because of X" in order to be true must be logically consistent. There is no way around that.

[Hannibal]

I'm not trying to irritate some of the other posters here, Powder. But I think that (if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding trolling - which I do after you last response to mine and not having read the other threads) some of them are making this unnecessarily complicated for you.

 

I don't think it's useful for people to tell you that the idea of "God" is logically inconsistent or self-contradictory. This is the case only if we take a very narrow and specific definition of "God", and I actually think you have rightfully asked for definition in that sense. The thread is about atheism, not the disbelief in some particular God according to some particular religion. 

 

The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to prove a negative, so if we choose a definition of God which is not self-contradictory (and there have been many throughout history), as a square-circle is, then no one can truthfully tell you that there cannot be such a thing as God.

 

 

So I would advise you to ignore all of the comments about self-contradiction, and just take onboard the fridge-monster comparison.

 

IF, however, you choose a particular God which is self-contradictory in it's definition (like 'your' RC Christ), then fine - it's not even worth assessing the probability. But really this is just a distraction from your real problem, which is to understand the axiom that no one can prove a negative,  and that probability is not the same a possibility. In the same sense one could argue that it is impossible to prove a positive, and I would agree; but we can demonstrate that the probability is so high that it is rational to consider it proof unless we receive evidence to the contrary.

 

It doesn't even matter if you find a way to argue that the RC God is not self-contradictory, because it would STILL be so unlikely that it would be irrational (unreasonable if you like) to believe in it. This is the point.

[Kevin Beal]

I don't think it's useful for people to tell you that the idea of "God" is logically inconsistent or self-contradictory. This is the case only if we take a very narrow and specific definition of "God",

You didn't by chance watch the debate I linked, did you? Stef actually comments on this and makes a compelling case that in fact it is necessarily self contradictory, and that you don't have to pose any definition of a "god" in order to conclude this. The very fact that you are talking about gods is sufficient enough to dismiss it outright.

 

I know that might seem like quite the statement, but just watch the debate.

[Hannibal]

You didn't by chance watch the debate I linked, did you? Stef actually comments on this and makes a compelling case that in fact it is necessarily self contradictory, and that you don't have to pose any definition of a "god" in order to conclude this. The very fact that you are talking about gods is sufficient enough to dismiss it outright.

 

I know that might seem like quite the statement, but just watch the debate.

 

I've not watched all of it, so feel free to point me to specific parts...

 

The trouble is that while I agree with Stefan when he talks about consciousness without matter being self-contradictiory, it is so only within the context of our current understanding of the nature of the universe. It's not a logical contradiction in the sense that 2+2=5 is. And the trouble with determining that something is a logical contradiction based upon the known properties of the universe is that it ignores the fact that our knowledge of the universe itself is inherently self-contradictory - Is it endless? That doesn't make sense. Is it finite in size? That doesn't make sense either. 

 

So given that the nature of the universe mystifies us, and we therefore work within the parameters of what we do at least know, currently, then one cannot rule out the possibility that those understood and fundamental properties of the universe could change at some point as we learn more.

 

So if we accept that the nature of the universe, and therefore the nature of reality, is open to possible change (as far as our understanding of it is concerned) then we cannot logically use those same properties as absolutes when deciding that consciousness without matter is absolutely contradictory.

 

 

So again, all we end up with being able to say with absolute certainty is that the odds are sufficiently low that it is rational to consider it impossible. it isn't, though, logically impossible (unless we narrow our definition of consciousness, but that is just using semantics to dodge the question). 

[powder]

I'm not trying to irritate some of the other posters here, Powder. But I think that (if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding trolling - which I do after you last response to mine and not having read the other threads) some of them are making this unnecessarily complicated for you.

 

I don't think it's useful for people to tell you that the idea of "God" is logically inconsistent or self-contradictory. This is the case only if we take a very narrow and specific definition of "God", and I actually think you have rightfully asked for definition in that sense. The thread is about atheism, not the disbelief in some particular God according to some particular religion. 

 

The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to prove a negative, so if we choose a definition of God which is not self-contradictory (and there have been many throughout history), as a square-circle is, then no one can truthfully tell you that there cannot be such a thing as God.

 

 

So I would advise you to ignore all of the comments about self-contradiction, and just take onboard the fridge-monster comparison.

 

IF, however, you choose a particular God which is self-contradictory in it's definition (like 'your' RC Christ), then fine - it's not even worth assessing the probability. But really this is just a distraction from your real problem, which is to understand the axiom that no one can prove a negative,  and that probability is not the same a possibility. In the same sense one could argue that it is impossible to prove a positive, and I would agree; but we can demonstrate that the probability is so high that it is rational to consider it proof unless we receive evidence to the contrary.

 

It doesn't even matter if you find a way to argue that the RC God is not self-contradictory, because it would STILL be so unlikely that it would be irrational (unreasonable if you like) to believe in it. This is the point.

I think that is an absolutely brilliant response to my query Hannibal.  Thanks for indulging me, I really get it now.  

[Kevin Beal]

The trouble is that while I agree with Stefan when he talks about consciousness without matter being self-contradictiory, it is so only within the context of our current understanding of the nature of the universe. It's not a logical contradiction in the sense that 2+2=5 is.

The logical conclusion of your statement then is that Santa Claus might exist somewhere out there, and you can't tell me otherwise.

 

For as long as there have been people believing in gods, they have always put it just beyond our understanding. This is just another god of the gaps. Please stop enabling delusional thinking. Gods do not exist, nor santa, nor ghosts, nor gelflings.

[Hannibal]

The logical conclusion of your statement then is that Santa Claus might exist somewhere out there, and you can't tell me otherwise.

 

 

 

Ofcourse. And I challenge anyone to prove that he doesn't exist.

I'm telling you that [a] God *could* exist, so why would I suppose that I could prove that santaclause doesn't?

 

 

 

 Please stop enabling delusional thinking. Gods do not exist, nor santa, nor ghosts, nor gelflings.

 

I'm not enabling delusional thinking, I'm encouraging logically correct thinking. If anything your position is enabling delusional thinking, because it is detached from reality - you can't deliberately teach people your own preferred flavour of logical truth, regardless of it's validity, and then complain when people think incorrectly.

[Kevin Beal]

Ofcourse. And I challenge anyone to prove that he doesn't exist.

I'm telling you that [a] God *could* exist, so why would I suppose that I could prove that santaclause doesn't?

Because, intuitively, it's completely insane. 

 

 

 

I'm not enabling delusional thinking, I'm encouraging logically correct thinking. If anything your position is enabling delusional thinking, because it is detached from reality - you can't deliberately teach people your own preferred flavour of logical truth, regardless of it's validity, and then complain when people think incorrectly.

You are giving people reasons (although technically may be in fact true) have only ever served the purpose of the "god of the gaps" ex post facto rationalizing.

 

Nobody is served by "well, we may learn that something works differently than we thought in the future" with regard to this conversation. No, there are no gods, no ghosts, no gremlins.

[Wesley]

You have to provide a definition of "a God that could exist" or this entire conversation is pointless.

[Hannibal]

You have to provide a definition of "a God that could exist" or this entire conversation is pointless.

 

Easy - any god which is not a self-contradiction. I.e. not a square circle. This has already been covered.

[Wesley]

Easy - any god which is not a self-contradiction. I.e. not a square circle. This has already been covered.

That is not a definition.

[Hannibal]

Because, intuitively, it's completely insane. 

 

 

Intuitively Einstein's theory of relativity is completely insane. It would have been even more so before he provided his evidence.

 

 

 

You are giving people reasons (although technically may be in fact true) have only ever served the purpose of the "god of the gaps" ex post facto rationalizing.

 

 

 

I'm not giving people reasons - reality is. You claim rationality yet deny reality. You're speaking in the manner of a man damaged by other people's lack of reason. That doesn't give you the right to tell other people that their observatoins of reality are wrong. 

You want to mask the one objective truth with your own rose-tinted truth because it makes you feel more comfortable. Shame on you.

That is not a definition.

 

Nor is your reply that of a intellectually honest person. The thread is about atheism, so choose a deity. ANY deity at all which doesn't also happen to be self-contradictory by definition.

 

Lets invent one - a being who can create new life at will, and is immortal. That sounds pretty godlike to me. Lets make him invisible too.

[Wesley]

Lets invent one - a being who can create new life at will, and is immortal. That sounds pretty godlike to me. Lets make him invisible too

Well scientists can create life. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/

 

Define immortal. Was it birthed? Can it be killed, but it just lives for a really long time? Does it not die of old age but could still die? Did it exist before life?

 

Invisibility is not amazing at all. Single-celled organisms are invisible.

 

Even so, these are attributions. "Let me find something that is amazing to be God! I think flying is amazing! Birds fly! Therefore Bird = God!" doesn't really follow. I can attribute whatever I want and call it God if it were to exist, but the "God" label is just a placeholder for my attributions.

[Lians]

I don't think it's useful for people to tell you that the idea of "God" is logically inconsistent or self-contradictory. This is the case only if we take a very narrow and specific definition of "God", and I actually think you have rightfully asked for definition in that sense. The thread is about atheism, not the disbelief in some particular God according to some particular religion.

 

I love this. Using a specific knowledge claim (God) while avoiding a "narrow and specific" definition. Do I get to put whatever I want under the label God? Is an apple a God? This is why you don't debate with people who can't even get the form of their arguments right. There's a reason why the aphorism "know thyself" became popular amongst the ancient Greeks.

[vze57564]

Quoting from before:  So Lians, the definition of a circle and 'god' fit into the same category of truth somehow?  Since everyone can agree on what a circle is and almost no one on a definition of god, I am not sure what to think, really.  and I am not being difficult, I am interested in learning.  

 

I think that is the point.  There is no definition of "God" because God is not a rational existence.  It is null, nothing, zero, nada.  It cannot be described, given form or manifested outside of someone's subjective delusions because of this.  Science deals with objective reality, there are standards for truth, verifiability, duplicability, and consistency with facts or logical integrity.  Things must logically follow or have a provable explanation for why they don't.  God does not have that.  Neither does Faith or any of the religious precepts promulgated by the respective governing body that oversees the religious body.  God and Truth cannot exist; they are antithetical to one another.

 

For one, I can make the assumption that religious people are also atheist, but did not take the last step for the one religion they currently believe in.  A Christian has rejected the existence of Zeus, Brahma Odin and the like.  The social aspect described in the first quote is the tar that keeps people from making that logical step out of that pit.  Rather than face the criticism of others, they continue on in their path, for acceptance of religion being false, means challenging or possibly ultimately leaving all those who are in your circle of friendship who also adhere to those beliefs.  This is not something done easily, so people choose to continue on the same path.

 

In time, you will notice as your capacity for critical thinking improves, you will logically come to the conclusion of atheism.  It would hold that while you have not yet arrived to this conclusion, you must improve your skill, and in the process, you will arrive to the same destination.  

[Hannibal]

 

For one, I can make the assumption that religious people are also atheist, but did not take the last step for the one religion they currently believe in.  A Christian has rejected the existence of Zeus, Brahma Odin and the like.  

 

This is exactly why a claim of atheism is always contained within a particular context. That context might often be implicit, but there is a context all the same.  If someone believed in God as an alien who came to earth and created life here, then I might be less inclined to say that I'm an atheist. If the conversation is in the context of what we might consider mainstream religions, then I would easily decide that I'm an atheist.

 

E.g.

Alien creator = sounds not too unreasonable = Agnostic.

A god that violates the laws of known physics = Sounds totally unreasonable without some kind of evidence = Atheist.

A god that is self-contradictory in nature = Does not compute = not worth even considering.

 

 

Ironically, Lians' & Wesley's determination to force a specific definition of 'God' from me is exactly the kind of child-like reasoning that Christians, etc, use against atheists. Theists tend to ask for disproof of something that cannot be disproved, and these guys ask for the definition of something that doesn't exist.

I love this. Using a specific knowledge claim (God) while avoiding a "narrow and specific" definition. Do I get to put whatever I want under the label God? Is an apple a God? This is why you don't debate with people who can't even get the form of their arguments right. There's a reason why the aphorism "know thyself" became popular amongst the ancient Greeks.

 

Listen and understand what I am saying, and you'll learn not to make yourself look so foolish.

 

 

You are the one making absolute statements here, and projecting your own definition of God onto other people. 

 

I am simply pointing out that there is a difference between an idea that violates the known laws of nature, and an idea that is logically self-contradictory. Contradictions simply do not exist, while the known laws of nature are subject to change / expansion.

 

My posts here, to which you object, are simply telling truth - something which you seem determined to show that you do not value. I am pointing out to the op that it is a mistake, objectively speaking, to equate the improbable with the logically impossible, and that to argue over that distinction is redundant as improbability is enough, in the absence of evidence.

 

If you've personally suffered because of religious bullshit, then that's sad for you. But truth is truth, and your disingenuous use of nit-picking semantics and word-play used to try to get other people to jump through redundant hoops just highlights that you are not approaching this from an objective perspective.

 

Think for yourself instead of regurgitating Stefan's material. Stefan is right on - but he is able to apply his reasoning to specific or implied context. When you reiterate it as absolute you just show that you don't understand it.

 

The crux of the OPs post was that he hadn't understood the difference between proving a positive assertion, and not being required to disprove a negative one. To start talking about square circles, while being appropriate in general (especially as the OP mentioned an Roman Christian upbringing), is to entirely miss the point of his misunderstanding.

[Wesley]

Ironically, Lians' & Wesley's determination to force a specific definition of 'God' from me is exactly the kind of child-like reasoning that Christians, etc, use against atheists. Theists tend to ask for disproof of something that cannot be disproved, and these guys ask for the definition of something that doesn't exist.

You were not listening to what I was saying. I was giving you the opportunity to pick any definition you wished and I can continue to do so. If there is no definition of god that can exist, then the entire debate is won. You have to at least be able to present a credible theory of proposing what god could be.

 

The things is that all definitions of God fit in at least 1 of the following 2 categories:

 

1. The Contradiction

 

Square-Circle, yada-yada, we've been over this and agree here

 

2. The Attribution

 

I will take something that does exist or could exist and attribute it to "Godliness". This was the flying example I gave, or "the process that created the world" is God, or "God is that which is part of all of us". 

 

The problem with the attribution is it means the "God" label is just meaningless garbage to create conflation with religious ideas of god. We have words called flying, evolution, and existence that define these terms. God is a terrible term to use for the attribution of these characteristics when other words are much clearer in their implication.

 

For instance, it could theoretically be possible that aliens planted the first life on earth (though there are more credible theories). This does not mean it is possible that God put life on earth. It means that is is possible that an alien life form put life on earth.

 

Labeling things god is the intellectually dishonest part as it only complicates things for no reason. Once we discover something, it no longer is god, but rather gets a meaningful term applied to it.

 

 

If you can come up with a definition that isn't attribution or contradiction, then I would be happy to hear it. However, I have never heard one. God is a concept that needs to be banished from rational thought and instead replaced with meaningful words.

[Lians]

Listen and understand what I am saying, and you'll learn not to make yourself look so foolish.

 

 

You are the one making absolute statements here, and projecting your own definition of God onto other people. 

 

I am simply pointing out that there is a difference between an idea that violates the known laws of nature, and an idea that is logically self-contradictory. Contradictions simply do not exist, while the known laws of nature are subject to change / expansion.

 

My posts here, to which you object, are simply telling truth - something which you seem determined to show that you do not value. I am pointing out to the op that it is a mistake, objectively speaking, to equate the improbable with the logically impossible, and that to argue over that distinction is redundant as improbability is enough, in the absence of evidence.

 

If you've personally suffered because of religious bullshit, then that's sad for you. But truth is truth, and your disingenuous use of nit-picking semantics and word-play used to try to get other people to jump through redundant hoops just highlights that you are not approaching this from an objective perspective.

 

Think for yourself instead of regurgitating Stefan's material. Stefan is right on - but he is able to apply his reasoning to specific or implied context. When you reiterate it as absolute you just show that you don't understand it.

 

The crux of the OPs post was that he hadn't understood the difference between proving a positive assertion, and not being required to disprove a negative one. To start talking about square circles, while being appropriate in general (especially as the OP mentioned an Roman Christian upbringing), is to entirely miss the point of his misunderstanding.

 

So, the only counter-argument you could come up with is that you're right and I'm nit-picking semantics? Let's add to that a generous amount of straw men and ad hominems. 1.5 years and 436 posts on this board and you consider this an argument? Yes, I'm making myself look foolish.

[Hannibal]

You were not listening to what I was saying. I was giving you the opportunity to pick any definition you wished and I can continue to do so. If there is no definition of god that can exist, then the entire debate is won. You have to at least be able to present a credible theory of proposing what god could be.

 

The things is that all definitions of God fit in at least 1 of the following 2 categories:

 

1. The Contradiction

 

Square-Circle, yada-yada, we've been over this and agree here

 

2. The Attribution

 

I will take something that does exist or could exist and attribute it to "Godliness". This was the flying example I gave, or "the process that created the world" is God, or "God is that which is part of all of us". 

 

The problem with the attribution is it means the "God" label is just meaningless garbage to create conflation with religious ideas of god. We have words called flying, evolution, and existence that define these terms. God is a terrible term to use for the attribution of these characteristics when other words are much clearer in their implication.

 

For instance, it could theoretically be possible that aliens planted the first life on earth (though there are more credible theories). This does not mean it is possible that God put life on earth. It means that is is possible that an alien life form put life on earth.

 

Labeling things god is the intellectually dishonest part as it only complicates things for no reason. Once we discover something, it no longer is god, but rather gets a meaningful term applied to it.

 

 

If you can come up with a definition that isn't attribution or contradiction, then I would be happy to hear it. However, I have never heard one. God is a concept that needs to be banished from rational thought and instead replaced with meaningful words.

 

Ok, I understand what you're getting at, so I don't really mean to be rude there - but I still have a big problem with it.

 

I think though that perhaps it's not a problem worth making anything of because I already think that we both agree that talking about God is pointless. If you suppose that God is logically impossible by definition, then clearly I would also feel that that particular god objectively (wrong word but I can't think of a better one right now) doesn't exist.

 

The only difference is that I've also opened a different level of 'Godliness' to decide is also irrational to believe in, so we're not actually in conflict as such there.

 

 

 

So here's the deal -

You say that 'God' is a logical contradiction by definition, otherwise it's a meaningless word. 

I say that in that case the word 'God' is always meaningless; why have a redundant word for a logical contradiction (in this context - obviously there is lots of redundancy in the English language).

 

So rather than pidgin hole "God" into the realms of logical impossibility, I say it has a valid use in the context of God entities which are not necessarily self-contradictions. For example, I'm pretty sure that you could trim out some contradictions in the bible and that God would still be seen as a god-like entity. The result of this might mean that we would consider the fact that we might one day acquire the scientific knowledge and technology to rival God (which would kind of make him/her/it redundant as a god), but does that necessarily make that God not a God?

 

Birds fly? Sure. But the truth of the mater is that men do not. So a flying man would have powers which could be described as godlike. 

Perhaps there is an advanced man who lives in the sky, and he alone among men has the knowledge to help us enter an afterlife (in whatever form that may be) when we die. The fact that men may one day learn how to reach the afterlife without him doesn't change the fact that to men living now, who face eternal nothingness, that advanced man living in the sky meets the standard of a God.

 

It's not for me to decide what other men judge to be godlike. Most may not make any sense, insofar as if it's just a case of learning the hidden mysteries of the universe then that might not seem very godly to most. But i'm sue there are many Gods through out human history that are, or could easily  be tweaked to not be logically impossible. How do we know that there is not some kind of property intrinsic to other kinds of beings, which men could never attain?

[Kevin Beal]

Starting 5 minutes into the first video of the debate Stef makes some points about what the hell we are talking about when we say a "god".

 

First he's gotta be incorporeal or else we are just talking about a dude, a super powerful alien or something like that, and not a god. And second is that it's eternal (before and after the universe). And some form of superhuman kind of intelligence: all-knowing.

 

If we don't accept these things, we're just talking about some super powerful alien and not a god. And those things are necessarily self contradictory.

 

A cup is not a god, this computer screen is not a god, my pinky toe is not a god. "God" has an actual definition as vague as some people like to make their gods. It's not like it's something we can't comment on without putting forward a bunch of definitions. If you say that a god could exist, or that your god exists, then you are wrong, or you are using the word wrong.

 

The debate is actually very enlightening if you haven't watched it yet. Please do that.

[Hannibal]

I guess I should have said (might be clearer) to Wesley that saying that God doesn't exist because your definition of a God is something which couldn't possible exist, is begging the question.

 

So I'm happy with that. 

 

That means that for any discussion about God worth having we'd have to assume that that definition of God was not the one we were using.

 

 

 

Starting 5 minutes into the first video of the debate Stef makes some points about what the hell we are talking about when we say a "god".

 

First he's gotta be incorporeal or else we are just talking about a dude, a super powerful alien or something like that, and not a god. And second is that it's eternal (before and after the universe). And some form of superhuman kind of intelligence: all-knowing.

 

If we don't accept these things, we're just talking about some super powerful alien and not a god. And those things are necessarily self contradictory.

 

A cup is not a god, this computer screen is not a god, my pinky toe is not a god. "God" has an actual definition as vague as some people like to make their gods. It's not like it's something we can't comment on without putting forward a bunch of definitions. If you say that a god could exist, or that your god exists, then you are wrong, or you are using the word wrong.

 

The debate is actually very enlightening if you haven't watched it yet. Please do that.

 

Well this has become more clear to me as we've been talking, and I know what most of the mainstream Gods are exactly those kinds which are self contradictory - "A god is something which couldn't possibly exist - if it could possibly exist then I wouldn't be sufficiently impressed to label it 'God'", basically.

 

I'm happy with that, but would point out that that's a worthless definition of a God. So the only definition of "god" that is worth having is one which doesn't exclude it's own validity by definition.

 

Some people might define God as "a being with powers to do the impossible". Obviously this doesn't make sense, but people believe it all the same. If that "god" revealed itself and did the 'impossible' in front of our eyes, would it cease to be a God because it performed an action which it was required to do in order to be considered a god in the first place?

 

Clearly the original definition is incorrectly formed, but does that change anything? 

 

I will get through the debate, and I do have more sympathy (wrong word again) for your position than I did at the start, but for me I still know that most people (most are fairly casual in their faith) define their god by certain things that he's done and does, not by his impossibility, and I don't think it would be of any use when it comes to pointing out their irrationality, to go down that route (it's hard because i know some people do define it like that).

 

So I would like the relegate my objection to a matter of personal taste (although strongly felt), rather than an absolute objection, given your (narrow in my opinion) definition of what could be considered a God.

[Flake]

Starting 5 minutes into the first video of the debate Stef makes some points about what the hell we are talking about when we say a "god".

 

First he's gotta be incorporeal or else we are just talking about a dude, a super powerful alien or something like that, and not a god. And second is that it's eternal (before and after the universe). And some form of superhuman kind of intelligence: all-knowing.

 

If we don't accept these things, we're just talking about some super powerful alien and not a god. And those things are necessarily self contradictory.

There are plenty of philosophers who do a decent job arguing against that. They would make the point, that whatever was referred to when people uttered the word God, is what is meant by God. That if we discover that what was called God is actually a alien, then that alien is God, because that's what the word God was referring to all along.

[Kevin Beal]

So I would like the relegate my objection to a matter of personal taste (although strongly felt), rather than an absolute objection, given your (narrow in my opinion) definition of what could be considered a God.

If a guy creates a hologram of himself and projects it into the clouds, comes up with an elaborate story about how he created the universe and when prompted to answer any omniscient challenge refers to the google app on his smart phone, then he's not a god.

 

It doesn't matter what people think about a particular entity, it has to fit a definition regardless of what people think. They thought he was a god, but they were wrong.

 

Likewise, a super powerful alien may be "god-like", but he is not a god.

 

To create a definition of a god that includes super powerful aliens in with the gods that people actually believe in (which are square circles) is to create a meaningless definition that is far too broad and not at all useful as it includes mutually exclusive completely unlike things.

 

Gods aren't real by their very definitions like you said, and you can call it "narrow" or whatever you want, but it's the most consistent and valuable definition and best describes what is actually going on for people. If your christian neighbor learned that Yahweh is really just a powerful alien with some really awesome 3D printer and a smart phone, then they would not continue to worship it, because he is not a god.

[Hannibal]

So, the only counter-argument you could come up with is that you're right and I'm nit-picking semantics? Let's add to that a generous amount of straw men and ad hominems. 1.5 years and 436 posts on this board and you consider this an argument? Yes, I'm making myself look foolish.

 

Lians, I've just got back from collecting a pizza and a couple of beers, and while I was gone I was thinking about what've we've been talking about. I think I owe you an apology:

 

It was wrong of me (as in bad, also incorrect) to suggest that you don't understand what you're saying. I've also been too quick to suggest that you're being awkward.

 

I've been very frustrated for a while now with regards to people being very quick to pick on people's deliver, rather than addressing the question at hand, and also people's eagerness to sound-off without taking the time to consider the actual meaning of another persons question. It's something that drives me nuts, and here's an example of a very recent linkedIn group conversation which has out me in this mood:

[op - who looks as though English possibly isn;t her native tongue] - "

We have agile manifesto and it is clear with a number of high level principles.. Why there is lots of debate on semantics related to agile development in agile forums? 

 

For example: can we use these principles to other project?, what is the definition of this concept in agile development? etc. Is this because agile is given us flexibility and we are not used to it and so we try to again define rules and add complexities? http://www.developsense.com/blog/2013/04/semantics/""

 

Then LOADS of replies, mostly junk with stuff like :

 

 

[some guy] - "Quite simply, "semantics" is the study of what people mean by what they say. So the original question rephrased is "Why debate on what people mean by what they say?" My answer is: so that we can figure out what we're talking about. 

 

 

...

 

[some woman] - "It is not clear to me from the OP and some of the comments whether everyone is using the same meaning for "Semantics", especially when the term is used dismissively. Semantics is the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. Hence the answer to "Why debate on semantics?" might be because doing so helps clarify the meaning and logic of the Agile methodology. (The phrase "It is just semantics" is absurd, because it is being dismissive of meaning and logic.)"

 

 

And when I try to suggest that the question isn't absurd - the commenters have just failed to understand the OP's question, they reply with even snottier and more pointless comments about their years in the industry, and why semantics is important - completely missing the point (which is that the OP wonders why people can't use their initiative to apply high level principles to specific situations, without having to debate what's 'correct').

 

Eventually the poor woman sends me a personal message, after I apologised in the thread if I was misrepresenting her, saying that she's given up, and will revert to to reading books:

 

Hi *******, 

 

I understand and I think we had similar view about how to respond questions. 

 

I personally prefer to act than to discuss things that do not seem to me to add value. I asked why people discuss things like this.But unlike you I see most of such debate is between people who have years of experience and not less experienced ones. 

 

The online discussions suggested me that most of the consultants like to debate just to debate. Most of the replies were concerned about their own debate rather than the question. I wonder why they did not simply post another question. In some cases, I reflected my view. But further responses were again about other things and discussion between some people. 

 

I thought i can learn from online forums like this. But it proved me that reading books, papers, reports, experience in projects, talking with product owners etc is much more efficient (at least for me). 

 

Good luck with your job search, 

Best 

********

 

 

 

 

So sorry for the spam, but I though it might help me articulate myself.

 

In this case what I didn't like was that you were using a specific definition of god (i.e. an entity that couldn't exist), and throwing that back at the OP as a square-circle scenario which I imagined might not be useful from his confused perspective, whereas you could ask "is your definition of god a being that couldn't possibly exist?", or whatever, and take it from there.

 

So in that sense my existing frustration triggered my perception of you guys throwing around the FDR gospel, rather than reasoning as I would like, with the OP. When I say gospel, I don;t question it;s validity, only the way it is often used an argument in and of itself, without explanatory detail.

 

I see lots of argument here (on the forums) which essentially boil down to "because stef said it's true", and so it's very easy to let that taint my interpretation of the arguments.

 

Anyhow, my poor articulation of how I think the position should have been argued to the OP is not important, only that I disagreed with it and let my frustration, from other examples where I thought the OP was getting an unnecessarily hard time, affect my judgement, and so I apologise for being out of order in my response to you (and anyone else implicated). 

There are plenty of philosophers who do a decent job arguing against that. They would make the point, that whatever was referred to when people uttered the word God, is what is meant by God. That if we discover that what was called God is actually a alien, then that alien is God, because that's what the word God was referring to all along.

 

This is what I meant. It's the only definition of god that makes any logical sense, and so I assumed it as the best meaning of "god". I wasn't especially aware that people choose the other meaning of God, although now that i think of it it does tend to be the typical counter-argument of people not even interested in reasoning. 

[Lians]

I appreciate the apology and I accept it. I know Agilistas can be frustrating to deal with. I'll provide some clarifications since my fortune cookie type of answer wasn't enough. 

 

Whenever you're communicating with another person, you're encoding some kind of information (what I called "knowledge claim") into words or other appropriate units. The other side then decodes that information and processes it in some way (reply, change of behaviour and so forth). A meaningful exchange of ideas/communication is therefore impossible if both sides don't have the same encoding/decoding algorithm - definitions or common experiences. In other words, in the absence of agreed upon definitions and/or common perception apparatuses, communication is an exercise in futility.

 

Definitions in a debate aren't provided so that people can argue about semantics, they're a way of establishing a common ground of understanding. Of course, you can then use tools like reason and experiment to evaluate the consistency of the definition. People usually get stuck endlessly arguing about definitions because they aren't interested in a debate. They want the other party to unconditionally agree with a certain proposition. You've already seen that in the case of Agile debates.

 

Here's what's different about the situation we're dealing with. Since you decided to engage in a debate, you've implicitly accepted the value and validity of the process. As a side note (in case you find the previous statement questionable), this idea is formalized in the study of human action - praxeology. When you refer to the idea of "God" in your arguments, you're encoding some information (meaning/signified) into a particular form/signifier (the label "God"), which the rest of us automatically decode based on our subjective experiences. To achieve a certain standard of objectivity, we have to ask you for the definition that you're using. When you refuse to provide a definition or claim that a specific definition is impossible/impractical, you're essentially saying to us that the signifier you used carries no meaning. This defeats the entire purpose of communication, let alone debating. To put it in Stefan's terms (I reckon I can do this since I explained the argument in a lot detail), you're putting forward a self-detonating proposition, because the act of debating invalidates the argument. This is why Wesley said the following:

 

You have to provide a definition of "a God that could exist" or this entire conversation is pointless.

 

If we were to argue semantics, we'd be examining the meaning behind the signifier. In this case, the problem was with the signifier/form itself. That's what I meant by: "...you don't debate with people who can't even get the form of their arguments right," in my first reply to your post. Admittedly, I phrased it in a provocative manner for which I apologise. I was quite annoyed at the way powder conducted himself in the prior exchange and it spilled over to you.

 

Now, you chose to debate, you're clearly able to encode some information into the "God" signifier and you can distinguish between this particular knowledge claim (God) and other kinds of information (apple). That's how we know, objectively, that you've used some definition (the encoding algorithm) to communicate the "God" idea. Why this definition is not consciously available to you is a different matter altogether. I know you're able to reason about these kinds of things, so I suspected there might be emotions involved (hence the "know thyself" bit).

 

I hope this post makes things a bit more clear. I wrote this wall of text to explain a 6-sentence post... Perhaps I should stick to fortune cookie answers after all.

[Think Free]

EDIT: Oops, wrong thread.

[powder]

Starting 5 minutes into the first video of the debate Stef makes some points about what the hell we are talking about when we say a "god".

 

First he's gotta be incorporeal or else we are just talking about a dude, a super powerful alien or something like that, and not a god. And second is that it's eternal (before and after the universe). And some form of superhuman kind of intelligence: all-knowing.

 

If we don't accept these things, we're just talking about some super powerful alien and not a god. And those things are necessarily self contradictory.

 

A cup is not a god, this computer screen is not a god, my pinky toe is not a god. "God" has an actual definition as vague as some people like to make their gods. It's not like it's something we can't comment on without putting forward a bunch of definitions. If you say that a god could exist, or that your god exists, then you are wrong, or you are using the word wrong.

 

The debate is actually very enlightening if you haven't watched it yet. Please do that.

I totally get what you are saying Kevin, and the logical consistency of language and definitions is easy to follow.  I did listen to the videos and Stef's definition of God.  Still, there have been throughout history, and still today there are, many definitions given to 'god' or the 'gods' (Zeus perhaps) that do not fit that definition.  Like what Flake said.  Does a definition of god not have to have some historical relevance?  I think that any being with supernatural powers (could be an ipad) that is looked up to by man as a 'superior' being that they look to for guidance of some sort has been called god and would be an apt definition for me.  

[Kevin Beal]

I totally get what you are saying Kevin, and the logical consistency of language and definitions is easy to follow.  I did listen to the videos and Stef's definition of God.  Still, there have been throughout history, and still today there are, many definitions given to 'god' or the 'gods' (Zeus perhaps) that do not fit that definition.  Like what Flake said.  Does a definition of god not have to have some historical relevance?  I think that any being with supernatural powers (could be an ipad) that is looked up to by man as a 'superior' being that they look to for guidance of some sort has been called god and would be an apt definition for me.  

Zeus is eternal and occasionally incorporeal if I remember correctly.

 

The problem with Flake's objection is that these people who believed in these ancient gods didn't think that the god was a powerful alien. They worshiped these gods because they were thought to be specifically supernatural. If they were wrong and the being they worshiped was just really advanced technologically then that's not a problem with what I'm saying, that's them being incorrect.

[Flake]

Zeus is eternal and occasionally incorporeal if I remember correctly.

 

The problem with Flake's objection is that these people who believed in these ancient gods didn't think that the god was a powerful alien. They worshiped these gods because they were thought to be specifically supernatural. If they were wrong and the being they worshiped was just really advanced technologically then that's not a problem with what I'm saying, that's them being incorrect.

What those people believed is irrelevant. A person can be completely wrong about the properties of a object, that doesn't change the fact that they are talking about that object, when they use the object's name. Once people believed that tomatoes were poisonous, when they talked about them they would say they are poisonous, they eventually realized they weren't, does that mean that tomatoes ceased being tomatoes? The word tomato still referred to the same thing, they just realized that one of the properties they atrributed to it, poison, wasn't one of its attributes.

[Kevin Beal]

What those people believed is irrelevant. A person can be completely wrong about the properties of a object, that doesn't change the fact that they are talking about that object, when they use the object's name. Once people believed that tomatoes were poisonous, when they talked about them they would say they are poisonous, they eventually realized they weren't, does that mean that tomatoes ceased being tomatoes? The word tomato still referred to the same thing, they just realized that one of the properties they atrributed to it, poison, wasn't one of its attributes.

But they were wrong that it was a god. It's because it is what it is and not what people think it is, that is my point.

 

If they were mistaken, then they were wrong.

 

Let's say they thought that my magic trick was real magic. Once I reveal that it's just an illusion, we don't change the definition of "magic" to include illusions. It was in fact not magic.

[powder]

But they were wrong that it was a god. It's because it is what it is and not what people think it is, that is my point.

 

If they were mistaken, then they were wrong.

 

Let's say they thought that my magic trick was real magic. Once I reveal that it's just an illusion, we don't change the definition of "magic" to include illusions. It was in fact not magic.

I think I still agree with Flake here Kevin.  

 

So you are saying that the word 'god' has a specific definition, that is invariable and unchanging, like the word 'circle' for example, and anyone who uses the word 'god' to describe anything outside of that definition is just mistaken and using it wrong.  Like calling a tomato a stapler.  Have I got that right?  

[Kevin Beal]

So you are saying that the word 'god' has a specific definition, that is invariable and unchanging, like the word 'circle' for example, and anyone who uses the word 'god' to describe anything outside of that definition is just mistaken and using it wrong.  Like calling a tomato a stapler.  Have I got that right?  

A definition doesn't have to be unchanging and invariable (which is redundant btw ) for it to be specific enough as to exclude things from it which are unlike, and not unlike like Yahweh and Zeus are unlike, but unlike in the sense that what it is that makes X a "god" is unlike.

 

Yahweh is a god because he's eternal, incorporeal, omniscient etc, and a tomato is a god because it's a red veggie (or fruit or whatever). You get that the definition becomes completely useless at this point.

 

It's really as simple as saying that magic tricks aren't real magic. Unless I'm just missing something totally obvious, it's really not that complicated.

[Flake]

If it were so simple then there wouldn't be a heated debate in modern philosophy on this very subject. Later tonight I'll respond to your response

[Kevin Beal]

If it were so simple then there wouldn't be a heated debate in modern philosophy on this very subject. 

That doesn't follow logically.

[powder]

A definition doesn't have to be unchanging and invariable (which is redundant btw ) for it to be specific enough as to exclude things from it which are unlike, and not unlike like Yahweh and Zeus are unlike, but unlike in the sense that what it is that makes X a "god" is unlike.

 

Yahweh is a god because he's eternal, incorporeal, omniscient etc, and a tomato is a god because it's a red veggie (or fruit or whatever). You get that the definition becomes completely useless at this point.

 

It's really as simple as saying that magic tricks aren't real magic. Unless I'm just missing something totally obvious, it's really not that complicated.

I don't know Kevin, maybe I'm missing something totally obvious.

 

So, I don't think the definition of god  as you and Stef have defined it (god(s) must be eternal/immortal, omniscient, omnipotent...) is historically or theologically adequate to encompass all those given that moniker, ie:  Most of the beings worshiped, looked to for guidance, prayed and given sacrifices to etc, were not claimed to have had all those characteristics.  

 

Let me try to be more specific with my question:  What would you say to a definition of god(s) that goes something like this:  a non human being or entity that has some type of supernatural powers and that is perceived by its admirers (?) to have some sort of ability to control the destiny of mankind and is often prayed to, worshiped, looked to for guidance and so on.  Could be Ra or Shiva or Quetzalcoatl or the Rain God, whatever.