It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
Reason to ask questions, not to abandon theism. If you are going to approach theism and theology with integrity and due diligence then these are important questions to ask. We don't know the first thing about any of these properties like atemporality or omnipotence except what we can ponder in hypotheticals. Aren't you even a little curious about how that stuff works? Doesn't it make you even a little nervous? Nervous enough to want solid answers?
How may we get the answers we seek by contenting ourselves that we have haven't framed the questions well (igtheism)?
Surely we must, as intelligent questioners, work towards greater knowledge, albeit is small steps.
We don't abandon mathematics because we don't have full definitions of things. Mathematics is exploration of what is knowable. At some stage in the past, we didn't know the concepts of mathematics. That is no reason to give up.
In the case of the infinite, we have carried poor but useable definitions for millennia. The weakness of the definitions haven't stopped the work in that regard by the likes of Srinivasa Ramanujan whose work on infinite series revolutionized 20th Century mathematics (and who also stated: "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it expresses a thought of God").
The igtheist case that: 'I will not decide because taking a yes, no, or even ambivalent position is absurd while the concepts are not clearly defined' is the equivalent to 'I don't know and I don't care to find out'. In practice, it is usless, defeatist and not any sort of valid answer to argument, it is a cop-out. Nor is the potential to make the definitions more rigourous, partitioned off from us (pun intended but unlikely to be understood).
The igthist also ignores the anthropomorphic nature of many concepts of deity. In these cases, there is no issue with the definitions of attributes. The argument itself seems to be ignorant of the ignorance required to accept it.
Where exactly are you getting the "I don't care to find out" from? Igtheism encourages the clarification of godly attributes in order to more precisely comprehend the forces you are reaching out to. More to the point, it posits that this is the only means of comprehending such forces. Measuring atemporality and omnipotence and omniscience, for instance. Acquiring falsifiable data that allows us to nail down in exact terms the dimensions and nature of these forces. Its irresponsible to give the subject any less than our most acute scrutiny, if we are to treat the reality of a superhuman overlord seriously. Its not a cop out, it is due diligence. Devise a means of testing and recording these properties and I would be fascinated to see the results. Refuse to devise a means and your conclusions lose their foundation.
Let's explore one of those terms that you say are undefined: 'atemporality'.
I would say that the simplest definition is that "An atemporal thing is one that is totally unaffected by the passage of time", i.e: it is what it is, regardless of time.
If I measure something that is atemporal at the Big Bang its values are no different than if I measure the same last Tuesday, right now, or even if I were to travel 129 billion years into the future.
The number 7 would be atemporal (like all other numbers) but perhaps this is a little too abstracted and not objective enough for you.
So, consider c the constant of the speed of light in a vacuum, ΩΛ (Omega-Lambda) the cosmological constant, the gravitational constant G, Planck's constant h, the electric constant ε0, and the elementary charge e. These are things that can be objectively examined and are atemporally unchanging.
In algebra an atemporal entity (lets call it 'αͲ ') definition would be: αͲ = αͲ + |T|
So, now that we have defined this 'oh so difficult' concept semantically and mathematically, and shown that such is evidenced objectively, you must reject the igtheist argument on the basis of your enlightenment.
Praise God!
Not so fast there, 'navigator of time'. This evidence would have to be submitted with all other alleged proof to be analyzed and criticized by the best and brightest in all fields before being rejected or approved for funding in order to better flesh out the framework of your data. Not to mention this is an expression of a hypothetical, a hypothetical of a metaphor no less. Comparing a god to numbers? You may as well compare mahatma ghandi to the alphabet. When was the last time someone used theoretical physics to describe how wet water is? Where is your practical demonstration of atemporality? Show us an apple that resists gravity or a bird reverting to an egg. Merely submitting a few half-cocked equations on a conspiracy forum is hardly groundbreaking or compelling. As such, the igtheist problem persists. I salute your efforts however. Maybe one day your crusade will be rewarded and a substantial definition will be revealed, majestically nestled in a mountain of reproducable data and fully documented tools and methodology. Until then, no substantial definition, no productive discussion.
May all your pay cheques be so ratified!
No one suggested that the LHC shouldn't be built because we didn't know the mass of the Higgs Boson.
In real life, the "I don't know something, so why bother" is not valid reasoning. Igtheism is "I don't (at present) know the values involved so why bother".
This does not exclude that some of the values are known and defined quite well at present. Or that all those values may be well defined in the future.
The igtheist argument is one of personal ignorance and indifference in the moment.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
You are adding the "why bother" part. Igtheism/ignosticism does not throw in the towel, it points out the almost deliberate obfuscation of divinity and encourages a more stringent examination and definition of properties attributed to divinity. As I have already mentioned. One can subscribe to igtheism and dismiss theology as pointless, or interpret it as reason to stop taking shortcuts where theology is concerned. You keep assuming the former, but the latter is also a possibility. You are misrepresenting igtheism/ignosticism to make it easier to attack, right down to altering its definition for such purposes. I would be fascinated to see someone produce the results of such a diligent investigation, especially if the results were substantial and reproducable...but alas, nothing has been posted to that effect. Nonetheless curiosity tempts me to keep my eyes open, and I often submit to my curiosity.
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut
As much as I love the irrelevant convoluted metaphorical story, it simply doesn't pertain to reality or the fact that god lacks evidence. It's more like me claiming that I have an invisible magic dragon living in my garage. By your standards, it is just as logical to believe it's there, as it is to reject my claim. That's really all I need to know.
Many of the terms that igtheism says are 'undefined' are actually quite well defined.
Fuzzily defined terms are sufficient to carry concepts whose meanings are not in dispute.
For instance, with the word 'omniscient', there is not large disageement about what that means. Everyone agrees that it means "having all knowledge". It is not implying an infinity of knowledge (knowledge is likely to be finite). It does not include less than all knowledge. It is the entire set of the knowable. There is no ambiguity in it. There is no ill-defined wishy-washy definition in it. It is specific and clear.
To suggest that because something might have an unclear definition that it is unknowable and cannot be valid as a tool of reason is stupid. The fact that we 'don't know' has historically proven to be the impetus to learn.
Igtheism says that, because the the parameters are 'ill-defined', it is pointless to draw a conclusion, or even proceed. The requirement for "a good non-contoversial definition before arguing" means that they cannot proceed with (or even begin) the argument until the definitions are made clearer.
The truth, ignored by igtheist illogic, is that one may proceed with an argument without full definition of all factors!
That is why the conclusion of the igtheist argument is equivalent to "why bother". They choose to not proceed based on a condition that is not required and irrelevant.
I'd actually like to see igtheists rigourously define 'ill-defined'. It would seem that they are quite happy to work with fuzzy definitions in that case. They don't seem to see their own self-contradiction.
originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm
I'd actually like to see igtheists rigourously define 'ill-defined'. It would seem that they are quite happy to work with fuzzy definitions in that case. They don't seem to see their own self-contradiction.
You overlooked this. I was curious to hear your thoughts on it.
ill-de·fined adjective not having a clear description or limits; vague. "ill-defined concepts" synonyms: vague, indistinct, unclear, imprecise, nebulous, shadowy, obscure; Google
om·nis·cient ämˈniSHənt/Submit adjective knowing everything. "the story is told by an omniscient narrator" synonyms: all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing "he thought I was some kind of omniscient guru" -Google
originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm
ill-de·fined adjective not having a clear description or limits; vague. "ill-defined concepts" synonyms: vague, indistinct, unclear, imprecise, nebulous, shadowy, obscure; Google
OK.
om·nis·cient ämˈniSHənt/Submit adjective knowing everything. "the story is told by an omniscient narrator" synonyms: all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing "he thought I was some kind of omniscient guru" -Google
Look! Google has a definition for omniscient too! It looks like we can get into the real discussion now.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm
I'd actually like to see igtheists rigourously define 'ill-defined'. It would seem that they are quite happy to work with fuzzy definitions in that case. They don't seem to see their own self-contradiction.
You overlooked this. I was curious to hear your thoughts on it.
I really don't think I need to define 'ill defined'. You could try Google if you are unclear on it, and I extend the same suggestion to chronaut.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm
I'd actually like to see igtheists rigourously define 'ill-defined'. It would seem that they are quite happy to work with fuzzy definitions in that case. They don't seem to see their own self-contradiction.
You overlooked this. I was curious to hear your thoughts on it.
I really don't think I need to define 'ill defined'. You could try Google if you are unclear on it, and I extend the same suggestion to chronaut.
But surely you cannot begin argument for igtheism without defining the terms! You igheretic, you!
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm
ill-de·fined adjective not having a clear description or limits; vague. "ill-defined concepts" synonyms: vague, indistinct, unclear, imprecise, nebulous, shadowy, obscure; Google
OK.
om·nis·cient ämˈniSHənt/Submit adjective knowing everything. "the story is told by an omniscient narrator" synonyms: all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing "he thought I was some kind of omniscient guru" -Google
Look! Google has a definition for omniscient too! It looks like we can get into the real discussion now.
A definition of hypothetical omniscience. Google also has definitions for vampires, dementors and hinkypunks. Better stock up on garlic...
But hypothetical Google hypothetical definitions, of all hypothetical sorts of hypothetical stuff, says, hypothetically, nothing about the rumour of your hypothetical igtheist hypothetical case.
I have more so hypothetically, I win.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm
ill-de·fined adjective not having a clear description or limits; vague. "ill-defined concepts" synonyms: vague, indistinct, unclear, imprecise, nebulous, shadowy, obscure; Google
OK.
om·nis·cient ämˈniSHənt/Submit adjective knowing everything. "the story is told by an omniscient narrator" synonyms: all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing "he thought I was some kind of omniscient guru" -Google
Look! Google has a definition for omniscient too! It looks like we can get into the real discussion now.
A definition of hypothetical omniscience. Google also has definitions for vampires, dementors and hinkypunks. Better stock up on garlic...
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm
ill-de·fined adjective not having a clear description or limits; vague. "ill-defined concepts" synonyms: vague, indistinct, unclear, imprecise, nebulous, shadowy, obscure; Google
OK.
om·nis·cient ämˈniSHənt/Submit adjective knowing everything. "the story is told by an omniscient narrator" synonyms: all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing "he thought I was some kind of omniscient guru" -Google
Look! Google has a definition for omniscient too! It looks like we can get into the real discussion now.
A definition of hypothetical omniscience. Google also has definitions for vampires, dementors and hinkypunks. Better stock up on garlic...
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm
I'd actually like to see igtheists rigourously define 'ill-defined'. It would seem that they are quite happy to work with fuzzy definitions in that case. They don't seem to see their own self-contradiction.
You overlooked this. I was curious to hear your thoughts on it.
I really don't think I need to define 'ill defined'. You could try Google if you are unclear on it, and I extend the same suggestion to chronaut.
But surely you cannot begin argument for igtheism without defining the terms! You igheretic, you!
You are playing games.
originally posted by: chr0naut
Car lacks evidence, therefore doesn't exist?
God lacks evidence, therefore doesn't exist?
The reasoning process applicable is identical for both cases. There is no special pleading. They just have different objects.
I would however, be likely to disbelieve you, as you have a history of making false statements. I don't believe in magic (except as deception or a fictional device) and most dragons are fictional. The linking of questionable attributes of 'invisible', 'magic' and 'dragon' with your propensity for mis-statement would suggest to me that it was highly unlikely to be true.
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: chr0naut
Car lacks evidence, therefore doesn't exist?
God lacks evidence, therefore doesn't exist?
The reasoning process applicable is identical for both cases. There is no special pleading. They just have different objects.
This is precisely why your argument is bunk. The reasoning isn't even close to identical. We know cars exist, we know that people buy them. We also know that people steal them. Therefor it isn't a leap of logic to believe a friend may have bought a car and had it get stolen unless the guy is a compulsive liar. Asking "Is there evidence that a car was in the driveway" is the wrong question. The question is "Does god exist", so the only logical comparison would be to ask, "Do cars exist?" or "Do cars get stolen?"
Of course the glaring problem is that we have evidence that cars and car thefts exist, so we are back to square one. You can't just take a common every day occurrence and put it on the same level as the existence of god (or anything else that lacks evidence). There are no "god occurrences" that we can look at and analyze in the real world aside from unsubstantiated unverifiable claims. Nearly 2000 cars get stolen every day in the US and this is backed by police reports.
I would however, be likely to disbelieve you, as you have a history of making false statements. I don't believe in magic (except as deception or a fictional device) and most dragons are fictional. The linking of questionable attributes of 'invisible', 'magic' and 'dragon' with your propensity for mis-statement would suggest to me that it was highly unlikely to be true.
Except for the fact that I don't go around making false statements, but hey if that makes you feel better about your terrible argument, then enjoy it while it lasts. Funny how you mention questionable attributes, yet won't even admit that the same problem exists for believing in god.
Why don't you believe in magic? Where is the logic in that position? Where is the real world application for non belief in magic? You can't prove magic doesn't exist and as per you it is just as logical to believe in magic as to not believe in magic. Where is the logic in the amagicist position that you have now taken on?
originally posted by: chr0naut
You are still trying to argue for the definite non-existence of God, and again by special pleading. I was trying to show that the logical process of your argument did not lead to a 'logical' default, as you claimed, and that special pleading is not valid as rationale.
You spoke of a "logical default" that is neither, as I demonstrated with the hypothetical situation. However, you extended the criteria of the scenario I gave to refute an un-asked question. Bait and switch, in intellectual terms.
I request that you respond to the question of why atheism would be a 'logical default'. I will not debate the existence of God (which is a separate issue), with you, right now. Firstly, to do so, I would have to ensure that you use reasoning to form your conclusion/s and abandon prejudice. We are not quite there yet.
Atheists believe that there is no God but deny that atheism is a belief. Since by your own admission there is no definite knowledge of the existence of God (it is un-evidenced), atheism therefore, must be belief, rather than knowledge.
I don't believe in magic. I have no knowledge of its existence or non-existence. It is a belief.
originally posted by: Barcs
No, I'm not trying to argue for the non existence of god. I'm saying that your argument is doo-doo and that your comparison with the car theft is completely baseless. There is no special pleading necessary to bring up the fact that nobody has discovered any evidence of god. For god, you need special pleading constantly.
originally posted by: chr0naut
You are still trying to argue for the definite non-existence of God, and again by special pleading. I was trying to show that the logical process of your argument did not lead to a 'logical' default, as you claimed, and that special pleading is not valid as rationale.
You spoke of a "logical default" that is neither, as I demonstrated with the hypothetical situation. However, you extended the criteria of the scenario I gave to refute an un-asked question. Bait and switch, in intellectual terms.
Your hypothetical situation was nonsensical and cannot be accepted as a valid argument against the logical default. You are STILL not understanding that when we are talking about EXISTENCE of something, the logical default is ALWAYS non existence until evidence or reason for existence is given.
I already broke down the flaws in your car scenario. Like all of your other illogical arguments for god, the reasoning is invalid and doesn't apply to the real world. The reasoning isn't even close to the same, not even remotely.I explained this countless times already. Go back and read my posts. The existence of god is DIRECTLY related to atheism. Without theism, a-theism does not exist.
I request that you respond to the question of why atheism would be a 'logical default'. I will not debate the existence of God (which is a separate issue), with you, right now. Firstly, to do so, I would have to ensure that you use reasoning to form your conclusion/s and abandon prejudice. We are not quite there yet.
Without evidence for god, atheism is the logical default. To argue against atheism REQUIRES evidence of god.
It is the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to refute it. You are separating theism from atheism as if they have nothing to do with one another. That is dishonest. One makes the other, atheism is not some independent belief system. It requires that there is no objective evidence for god.
As long as that premise is valid, so is atheism.And we're back to the beginning of the circle again. Once again you pigeonhole atheism into what you want it to be, rather than what it is. Atheism is the rejection of theism. End of story.
Atheists believe that there is no God but deny that atheism is a belief. Since by your own admission there is no definite knowledge of the existence of God (it is un-evidenced), atheism therefore, must be belief, rather than knowledge.
But what is the explanatory power in that? Where is the real world application of non belief in magic?
I don't believe in magic. I have no knowledge of its existence or non-existence. It is a belief.
Don't you see that I'm using the same arguments you use against atheism, against your non belief in magic?
If so, Then, wouldn't you agree that our finite amount of time here could be said to be very special in that you are presently totally animated, aware of your surroundings, able to think about things beyond Earth and envision multi dimensions?