Paradox of Nothingness short version

[Alumno deVerum]

If the world is fundamentally logical then it must have a logical reason for being. But is the world logical? I don't know. But I must assume it is because I can only think logically and it appears to behave logically and that is all the evidence I have to go on. And if it is that means it can be explained.

Assuming the world is logical it seems to me there are two and only two possibilites here; 1- the universe can explain itself because that reason for being is intrinsic to it. 2-the universe is contingent on something else that has a logical reason for being intrinsic to it.

Eternity is a fact I have no problem with but just pushing "causes" back in time (or even outside of time for that matter) one after another without end seems to me to be the wrong way to think about it. It is in my opinion nothing more than a linear version of a circular argument. The system may go back forever but what explains the system itself? Why should it exist at all?

Now do I have any reason to believe the universe can explain itself? Well what is the universe? Science tells me it is an energy field that exists in a continuum, formed in the big bang, that curves in various places and in various degrees. The greater the curvature the greater the energy. Also energy, according to Einstein, is equivilent to matter. There is an argument that presents itself here. If the outward expansion of the universe exactly balances the force of gravity trying to pull it all back in then the curvature of the universe as a whole would be zero. So matter then would also be equal to zero or nothing. That is the universe just popped into being like a virtual particle out of the void because of the inherent uncertainty arising from quantum physics.

This argument attempts to make a connection between something and nothing (if matter is just a form of energy it, too, is equivalent to zero or nothing) but in my opinion it actually fails because it uses the term zero (0) incorrectly.

The fallacy here, it seems to me, is that the argument equates zero meaning "nothing" with zero meaning "no difference". In other words it is ambiguous. I could put an ounce of gold in each pan of a balance scale and it would indidcate zero meaning no difference but I would still have two ounces of gold.

Zero meaning nothing is not the same. You can not divide zero and get any answer other than zero. Half of nothing is still nothing. And since complexity seems to arise from simplicity not the other way around and this seems to be the simplest possible description of the universe (half the energy,gravity, is positive and attractive and goes this way- the other half, the force of the outward expansion, is negative and repulsive and goes the opposite way) I have no reason to assume there is any intrinsic reason for being to be found materially.

Besides even virtual particles seem to require an infusion of pre-existing energy in order to become stable and thus "real" and where did that come from? It appears for uncertainty to explain anything you must first have something to be uncertain about.

In fact the Polish mathematician Jacob Bronowski, author of the book The Ascent Of Man, found the term "uncertainty" so misleading he proposed using the word "tolerences" instead. After all that there are 36 possible outcomes on a roll of two 6 sided dice is certain it is only the actual value that comes up on any specific toss that is unpredictible. Our universe may be the same. Uncertainty may indeed have played a role in its formation and the way it turned out but where did the dice come from? Why is there uncertainty about nothing?

Now again asking, "How can something come from nothing?" may be the wrong question. For the time being we could rephrase it and ask why is there something instead of nothing? Or what is it about nothingness that keeps it from being absolute?

If the world is logical then it is subject to the rules of logic. Terms in a sentence are qualified by the copula using a form of the words is or is not. By applying the words is not to the concept of "being" as a whole you will get a non-arbitrary logical definition of nothingness as "no being" which, since it applies to the concept as a whole, is absolute..

Now here is where the contradiction arises. Ideas are not concrete things but that does not mean they are not something. I can distinguish between a 9 which is an odd number and a square and an 8 which is an even number and not a square. They have different properties and are therefore things in their own right as concepts. But concepts seem to require a mind to exist. That is they are contingent on an observer.

The example I use are stones and coins. I can hold 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but where is the number 9 apart from what I hold in my hand? I can sense no other property they have in common other than they are physical but changing the quantity doesn't seem to affect the physical characteristics of either group. So the number itself is not intrinsic to either group. I can understand the number 9 but I can not point to anything in nature and say this is the number 9 by itself. I can only think about it.

Nothingness is likewise a concept. After all we are thinking about it now. But if it is a concept then nothingness is not nothing. That is a paradox and in logic paradoxes can not exist. What happens when an irresistible force collides with an immovable object? An inconceivable event of course. Paradoxes must be dismissed as inconceivable and nothingness is a paradox therefore I must conclude a "state of nothingness" can not exist. Just saying "non-existence exists" is absurd. The only way to avoid a paradox is to have a state of existence instead of non-existence.

Absolute nothingness is to my mind an impossibility. Absolute means just that. Absolute. No properties at all. Not even potential. That means it can not even be thought of as there would literally be nothing to think about (and no one to think it anyway). But, again, since we are thinking about it nothingness can not be absolute. Nothingness is the only thing we can think of in completely negative terms except for the fact it can be thought of.

Also in logic things must follow or you have a non-sequiter. In the syllogism itself it is the middle term that unites the major and minor premises and leads to a conclusion. In life it is the DNA passed from one generation to the next that permits the evolution of species. And in pool it is the energy transmitted from the stick to the balls that allows the game to be played.

So, following from the definitions just established, whatever that fundemental state is it must also be a concept as that is the only thing being and nothingness have in common. That is, to be clear, the concept of nothingness exists but is self-contradictory and therefore unstable. It must collapse into a state that is stable and non-contradictory. This is not an assertion anything came from absolute nothingness which I hope to have shown I have no reason to believe is possible. And because concepts must be observed by a mind that fundemental concept must be self-referential as there is nothing else to see it. That means it can say I AM, which is the same self-referential foundation of the mind we all share, and thus hold Itself in existence. Therefore it is a self aware observer and since it is fundemantal it is prime. Therfore it is the Prime Observer.

Does this match what I see in the world? Yes. Einstein showed that matter is just energy in particle form. Erwin Schrodinger then showed that energy can be manifested as a wave. Lastly Max Born showed that waves are just probability distributions which are mathematical in nature and mathematics is just the logical organization of numbers which are concepts.

Some materialists argue that numbers are just manifestations of processes in the brain we impose upon the world. But I have no reason to accept that either because it too is a circular argument. You can't just assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material. If the universe and the things in it are basically concept then so is the brain. The brain is an organ made of tissue composed of cells built from organelles fashioned out of atoms which are particles made of energy...

A better tactic I think would be to counter the argument by saying it must be wrong because it holds paradoxes can not exist yet we see paradoxes all around us especially in physics. For example quantum theory says particles are also waves isn't that a paradox? Maybe. Maybe not. To know for sure that was a true paradox and not an illusion that results from our limited experiance we would have to have a complete theory of everything. But we don't. So we must regard any theory that asserts anything paradoxical as incomplete which physics is. In fact there are theories that do seem to suggest wave/particle duality is an illusion (Julian Barbour's quantum state theory of the universe for instance.)

Asserting God as a solution to a problem is called the argument from incredulity. The trouble with it is that answer does not follow from the problem to be solved. Ancient people couldn't explain life so God must have created it. I don't think I've done that here. The conclusion that there must be a "Prime Observer" follows directly from the premises. It is not something I just threw in to fill some "gap". In fact as I look back on it I don't see how I could come to any other reasonable conclusion"

[Alumno deVerum]

The Non-creator God

One of the most common questions asked of Deists who doubt divine intervention is how can a God incapable of interferring in the world "create" that same world? The short answer is God doesn't "create" the world.

This does not mean the world is not contingent on God. I have written before why I think a Deistic God probably exists so I won't go over it again here but I will elaborate a little on why I think it unnecessary to think of God as an active "creator".

I call myself a "natural idealist" because I think the world is fundamentally concept. This appears to be congruent with the way quantum mechanics describes the "physical" world. Albert Einstein demonstrated that matter is just a form of energy. Then Erwin Schrodinger showed energy is manifested as a wave. Finally Max Born proved that waves are just how mathematics distributes probabilities.

If the universe is nothing more than probability waves manifested as space/time then it could "precipitate" naturally out of what I call the "Prime Observer". Utilizing a technique first developed by the French mathematician Jean Baptiste Fourier complex ideas may be produced by adding together many different frequency waves making one wave with a distinctive shape. If all possible waveforms, positive and negative, are added together the resulting “shape” would be a single flat line (not no line).

As the source of all being the Prime Observer then could be thought of as a perfectly smooth self-referential concept analogous to a sphere (remember this is just a device to help us think about something far beyond our experiance). God, then, would be the simplest possible concept but contain within It all the complexities that can ever be.

Imagine a perfect sphere. "Ripples" could emerge soley by chance on the surface of such an object simply because it is possible for them to. As long as they don't occur simultaneously and cancel out such probability waves may arise unprompted. If the crest of a wave equals its trough then there is no net difference in the overall geometry of that sphere. That is there is no change in it as a whole.

Applying this to the world we see around us we could say any combination of waveforms that don't cancel out could spontaneously emerge (as long as they are balanced) simply because that which we call "God" is aware of them. Things happen because they can happen and they can happen because those things don't result in contradiction. Thus since all possibilities are already incorporated within It God does not need to "cause" anything. As long as the chance of them occurring does not equal zero they will happen all by themselves. This has the potential of solving several problems among them:

1- It shows how God can be the source of all being and remain immutable.

2- It could explain why our universe is predominately matter by saying we could have a sister universe that is mostly anti-matter (if the world is contingent on God then God must be able to explain the physical properties of the world).

3- Why the world seems designed for life by holding all possible worlds may emerge including those that are barren and we just happen to be in one of the few that has physical laws that allow the formation of planets that can support life. Kurt Godel pointed out the philosophical difficulties of mathematical descriptions of the world based on axioms. Why these rules? Why not others? May be those questions can simply be avoided if all non-contradictory axiomatic models, manifested as universes, are possible.

4- If Deism is true why would God would abandon It's creation? The world was not "created" therefore it was not "abandoned". You can't blame the evils in the world on God.

5- If God exists then why does It exist? God exists in order to avoid the "paradox of nothingness" and holds Itself in existence because It is self referential thus allowing God to say "I AM" the same foundation of the self we all share.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If the world is basically concept it must be observed and, therefore, God must exist but that is not the same as saying the universe must be "created". If that is true then there is no divine purpose to the world. It exists simply because it can. However that does not mean our lives are meaningless. Only that we are responsible for creating that meaning for ourselves.

For a more complete explanation of this form of Deism please check this link:

http://dynamicdeism.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1802

[Cuddles]

If the world is fundamentally logical then it must have a logical reason for being.

Nope.

[Jocky]

Alumno, this theoretical flatline "God" you postulate: do you think it can actually do anything - and if so, what?

[vbloke]

Nope.

*applause*

[ergry]

The way I see it, human reason cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Since that is a limit for the present of human reason, for we cannot be sure about the future, it might be more productive to find out what are the advantages of believing in God or not.

One thing sure is that the concept of God needs an overhauling from that proprietary to mankind of the traditional monotheistic schools.


Both theism and atheism are emotional mindsets of man, i.e., why people are theists or atheists is not a matter of the mind but of the heart.

If I may, I like to bring in the query from people here whether a skeptic can find Buddhism consistent with his skepticism, as skepticism is understood here or better still among the proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP (http://www.answers.com/topic/committee-for-the-scientific-investigation-of-claims-of-the-paranormal) society.

What about an atheist if he is also a skeptic?


ergry

[Mongrel]

The way I see it, human reason cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.We can't disprove to 100%, logical arguments tend to fall over when trying to prove a negative, but we can say confidently Evidence points to a near certainty that there isn't a greater being


Since that is a limit for the present of human reason, for we cannot be sure about the future, it might be more productive to find out what are the advantages of believing in God or not. This sounds like it's leading to Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager)


One thing sure is that the concept of God needs an overhauling from that proprietary to mankind of the traditional monotheistic schools.
If you have to work that hard to 're-image' deities don't you think it shows a fundamental flaw in the belief to begin with? Watch Dogma for a parody example ;) http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/Mongrel01/Skeptic%20stuff/Buddy_Christ.jpg



Both theism and atheism are emotional mindsets of man, i.e., why people are theists or atheists is not a matter of the mind but of the heart.
Rubbish - Most people come to Atheism after thinking about why they're religious and the tenets of their particular religion. Granted a small minority use atheism as 'rebellion' (far less over here than in the US I reckon) but even that can lead to thinking about it.


If I may, I like to bring in the query from people here whether a skeptic can find Buddhism consistent with his skepticism, as skepticism is understood here or better still among the proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP (http://www.answers.com/topic/committee-for-the-scientific-investigation-of-claims-of-the-paranormal) society.

Which version of Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism)? As for "skeptic Buddhists", I can't answer for CSICOP but I know of a few over at the JREF boards




What about an atheist if he is also a skeptic?
What about it? Does it make a difference if he's a skeptic and an atheist? What if they're non-skeptical and atheist?

[Admin]

The way I see it, human reason cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

I think this is the key to the question of God's existence.

There is absolutely no way at all of examining the claim so that renders any such claim or counter-claim meaningless.

I think that it was around the time of Thomas Aquinas that God was finally promoted (relegated?) to the position of a truly supernatural being. In other words, God is not only unknown to Man but unknowable by Man.

[ergry]

Question 1. This is UK Skeptics, why not UK Sceptics? -- because I would imagine that sceptics would be the spelling used if the founders are British nationals.

Question 2. Do we have a tally of members here as regards the lands from where they are transmitting their messages?

I asked these questions of the administration by email using the contact us link; but they have not yet answered me...

=======================

I asked certain questions in my first message here which are really invitations to members here to react so that I could see whether other people have similar opinions.



The way I see it, human reason cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Since that is a limit for the present of human reason, for we cannot be sure about the future, it might be more productive to find out what are the advantages of believing in God or not.

One thing sure is that the concept of God needs an overhauling from that proprietary to mankind of the traditional monotheistic schools.


Both theism and atheism are emotional mindsets of man, i.e., why people are theists or atheists is not a matter of the mind but of the heart.

If I may, I like to bring in the query from people here whether a skeptic can find Buddhism consistent with his skepticism, as skepticism is understood here or better still among the proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP (http://www.answers.com/topic/committee-for-the-scientific-investigation-of-claims-of-the-paranormal) society.

What about an atheist if he is also a skeptic?




Both theism and atheism are emotional mindsets of man, i.e., why people are theists or atheists is not a matter of the mind but of the heart.-------------------------------

Thanks, gentlemen, for your reactions, but I notice that there is emotionalism in the following text from Mongrel:


Rubbish - Most people come to Atheism after thinking about why they're religious and the tenets of their particular religion. Granted a small minority use atheism as 'rebellion' (far less over here than in the US I reckon) but even that can lead to thinking about it.
I might be mistaken however about the emotional mood of that text; in which case please ignore my impression.


About atheistic Buddhists who are skeptics, I am just curious how their being skeptics can be consistent with their embrace of Buddhism.

This brings in their protestation about the kind of Buddhism that is being understood.

But this question is a digression somewhat from the real topic of the present thread which is basically about proving or disproving the existence of God.

My own position is that in the last analysis, reason cannot get to prove either way in regard to God's existence; of course we can get into all kinds of qualifications and reservations on either side of the conundrum.

But since God is already a fact in human history which is the only history that should ultimately be of concern to humans and humans only, humans might as well study the advantages and disadvantages of the belief in God, and enhance the advantages while diminishing the disadvantages to nil as soon as possible.

What about myself? That is what I am doing for myself, maximizing the advantages of belief in God and minimizing the disadvantages -- and finding out whether other humans might share my kind of mindset.

I could also start with the disadvantages instead of the advantages, and drum on the disadvantages; but that is not to all appearances the psychology of humans, namely, that their psyche longs for a belief in God; so, better we work to enhance the advantages while doing away with the disadvantages -- or achieve the best compromise for all humans.

ergry

[Mongrel]

Question 1. This is UK Skeptics, why not UK Sceptics? -- because I would imagine that sceptics would be the spelling used if the founders are British nationals.

I believe that John Jackson chose the Skeptics spelling as it would get more hits.


Thanks, gentlemen, for your reactions, but I notice that there is emotionalism in the following text from Mongrel:

Rubbish - Most people come to Atheism after thinking about why they're religious and the tenets of their particular religion. Granted a small minority use atheism as 'rebellion' (far less over here than in the US I reckon) but even that can lead to thinking about it.

I might be mistaken however about the emotional mood of that text; in which case please ignore my impression.

So I'm a normal human being,with emotions, defending my point of view I'm emotional - OK I put my hand up to that one. But to then say I put my point across with emotion (mildly pissy in this case) therefore Atheist = emotional decision is a logic flaw of the most absurd order. (Association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)?)


But this question is a digression somewhat from the real topic of the present thread which is basically about proving or disproving the existence of God.

This brings in their protestation about the kind of Buddhism that is being understood.You asked a question, I asked for clarification of a term, call me funny like that but I like to answer questions as accurately as possible. As for the original question there's no reliable evidence for God\s and it's not possible to prove a negative - I'll stick with the evidence thanks.


My own position is that in the last analysis, reason cannot get to prove either way in regard to God's existence; of course we can get into all kinds of qualifications and reservations on either side of the conundrum.

Pascal's wager again - go follow and read that link in my last post



But since God is already a fact in human history which is the only history that should ultimately be of concern to humans and humans only, Wars and pacification of the masses by an elite few - woot!!1! ::)

One quick question - What evidence do you have for the existence of God\s?

[Jocky]

I asked certain questions in my first message here which are really invitations to members here to react so that I could see whether other people have similar opinions.

Ok, I'll play.


The way I see it, human reason cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

I basically agree, for the reasons which John has stated above. God is the ultimate unfalsifiable hypothesis. For this reason, I choose to describe myself as a skeptical agnostic rather than an atheist.


Since that is a limit for the present of human reason, for we cannot be sure about the future, it might be more productive to find out what are the advantages of believing in God or not.

Like Mongrel says, this is Pascal's Wager - which has always struck me as a breathtakingly cynical reason for believing in anything.


One thing sure is that the concept of God needs an overhauling from that proprietary to mankind of the traditional monotheistic schools.

An alternative - review the benefits which past generations (arguably) reaped from belief in God, and overhaul them in a humanistic context. Why should unquestioning faith in the existence of sky pixies be a prerequisite for motivating people to be nice to each other?

BTW, I agree with the implicit suggestion here that religion has no place in state funded education.


Both theism and atheism are emotional mindsets of man, i.e., why people are theists or atheists is not a matter of the mind but of the heart.

People choose their preferred God labels for all kinds of reasons, and I would be wary about generalising about them too much. For instance, I call myself an agnostic - but some may consider my position atheistic, others may feel that I am a closet believer.


What about an atheist if he is also a skeptic?

What about him? In my view there is no contradiction between skepticism and atheism, nor with some brands of theism. Skepticism is about using critical thinking and the scientific method as an approach to evaluating real world claims. It has nothing to say about abstract theology unless it makes such a claim - at which point it stops being proper theology and starts being woo ;)

[ergry]

What about him? In my view there is no contradiction between skepticism and atheism, nor with some brands of theism. Skepticism is about using critical thinking and the scientific method as an approach to evaluating real world claims. It has nothing to say about abstract theology unless it makes such a claim - at which point it stops being proper theology and starts being woo ;)


I was referring to skeptics who are Buddhists, whether their being skeptics could be inconsistent with their being Buddhists. Of course this question is not exactly apropos of the thread.


I have come across skeptics who are Buddhists and claim that being Buddhists is not inconsistent with being skeptics, because Buddhists are atheistic.


To my impression there is something strange in this reasoning. What about critical thinking as the hallmark of being a skeptic? and concentrated focus on evidence?


What do you gentlemen say?



About God's existence can't be proven or disproven with reason, yes, I agree with you that the logical position would be agnosticism.


But on the practical level, to arrive at a harmonious mankind, it might be more feasible to reduce the disadvantages of belief in God and increase the advantages, than to get into loggerheads with traditional theists represented by Christians, Judaists, and Muslims.



ergry

[ergry]

About Pascal's Wager, what I understand is that it is better to play safe by believing in God than by not believing, because if it should turn out that God does exist, then it would be beyond remedy after death for those who opt to not believe; however, if it should turn out that God does indeed not exist, then nothing is lost or wasted by believing.

Is that wager like since we cannot be sure whether we would be hit by a meteor or not on going outside the house, to play safe better not to go outside the house?

It seems that when it comes to God Pascal would play safe, even though he would still go outside the house even not sure that he would not be hit by a meteor.

What is the difference then between God and a meteor hitting you? which Pascal appears to give supreme importance to?


Evidence for the existence of God or non-existence of God, maybe the essential question should be what kind of evidence and how much evidence.


You can't prove a negative, therefore you can't prove that God doesn't exist; wherefore it is not justified to posit the non-existence of God?


Can we then all agree that for the present logic or human reason cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God?


ergry

[Jocky]

I was referring to skeptics who are Buddhists ... and claim that being Buddhists is not inconsistent with being skeptics, because Buddhists are atheistic ... What about critical thinking as the hallmark of being a skeptic? and concentrated focus on evidence?

There's an interesting thread here (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=306) which discusses this very subject. I certainly learnt a lot from that discussion. Take a look.


About Pascal's Wager ... Is that wager like since we cannot be sure whether we would be hit by a meteor or not on going outside the house, to play safe better not to go outside the house? ... What is the difference then between God and a meteor hitting you?

For a start, meteors are known to exist but God is not :smiley:

IMO, staying indoors to protect yourself from meteors is just as pointless as believing in God because of Pascal's Wager. The wager posits that there could be an omnipotent omnescent creator deity who is so neurotic and insecure that it would condemn souls to an eternity of punishment for failing to believe in it, despite the fact that it deliberately created reality in such a way that its existence was unverifiable. To me, that seems an absurd contention - frankly, I reckon I'm more likely to get hit by a meteor than that turning out to be true.


You can't prove a negative, therefore you can't prove that God doesn't exist; wherefore it is not justified to posit the non-existence of God?

No. On that basis, you cannot prove that I do not have a dragon in my garage (http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/st-drag.html).

I would say that it is a defensible argument to posit the non-existence of God. When there is no falsifiable test and a total lack of evidence, it is reasonable to proceed on the assumption that something does not exist until such time as there is evidence to the contrary.

There is a difference between absolute proof and reasonable deduction. If you hold out for the former, you will never prove anything.

[Cuddles]

About Pascal's Wager, what I understand is that it is better to play safe by believing in God than by not believing, because if it should turn out that God does exist, then it would be beyond remedy after death for those who opt to not believe; however, if it should turn out that God does indeed not exist, then nothing is lost or wasted by believing.

God is supposed to know all your thoughts. Do you really think that an all-knowing, all-powerful supreme being can't tell who is sincere in their belief and who is trying to play them? Pascal's wager is probably the most incredibly stupid idea ever.


Can we then all agree that for the present logic or human reason cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God?

Depends what you mean by "god". If you mean god as the general concept of some unspecified higher power then of course we can't prove anything. On the other hand if you actually define what "god" is, then of course we can. The new age theist "some kind of vague higher power that makes us feel good" can never be proven or disproven. The gods that most people believe in, like the Christian god, can very easily be disproven because material statments are made about them which can be tested. It's interesting to see that when people who believe in a god like this are challenged they shift their opinion to the thesit view which is nothing like the actual god described in the bible (or other holy book of your choice).

[ergry]

That is why I am of the opinion that the idea of God traditional to God-believing people need an overhauling. In the meantime since God has been with humans since recorded history, then we might do a more productive labor by working to reduce the disadvantages and increase the advantages of the belief in God.

Is that necessary? That is what statesmen are doing from people who are intent on governing other people like the founders of modern democratic states to the framers of the United Nations.


If we should construct an idea of God that is not emotionally antipathetic to atheists, would then there be any atheists around? And would there be any theists around? Well, for my own opinion, I would say that no traditional atheists and theists would be around.

What kind of a definition of God would do away with atheism and theism being two emotionally hostile camps? What about this concept of God: a being more superior to man in all respects but still in need of further development which he himself is working hard and continuously to achieve?

Namely, a God that is not infinite in any respects of socalled perfections of God as perfection is understood by who else? but man.

The way I see it, the primitive peoples did not know about an infinite God, and they had less trouble with their kinds of gods; trouble started when when we began to propound a God that is infinite.

But that idea of infinite from man, and who else but from man, is itself not reliable in the last analysis of our concept of infinity; because all man is limited and wherefore why should he be so sure that anything that he knows or claims not to be knowable is to be adhered to as to an inexorably standard of knowledge and attitude and behavior?


Since we cannot arrive at absolute certainty except in logical constructions like mathematics where we make up the premises and then draw deductions from them, we cannot at the end of the day and every day be absolutely certain unless and until if ever we know all the premises of reality and the universe which premises are not posited by the human mind either unlike with mathematics, but completely independent of man's thinking...

Since we cannot arrive at absolute certainty independent of our mind's way of knowing and thinking, then the existence of God or His inexistence is beyond absolute certainty.

Better to work on the psychology of atheists and theists, and seek to reduce the disadvantages of belief in God and increase the advantages, for both theists and atheists alike.

Both are ultimately emotional mindsets.


ergry

[Cuddles]

Both are ultimately emotional mindsets.

No. There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any kind of god. The only rational position is that god does not exist. No doubt there are athesists who choose to be so for emotional reasons, but the majority are simply rational people who look at the facts and reach the only logical conclusion.

[Jocky]

If we should construct an idea of God that is not emotionally antipathetic to atheists, would then there be any atheists around?

OK, so you are talking about taking the human-devised concept known as "God", and trying to rebrand it in such a way that it pisses people off a bit less.

There is a problem here which you have not addressed. Most people who profess belief in God don't seem to think that they are espousing an abstract idea - apparently, they consider God as part of actual physical reality. Rebranding won't work with them, as they think that the "brand" has already been revealed unto them by whichever holy people or texts they happen to favour, and is therefore not open to redefinition.

This belief is based on faith, and is at odds with the evidence. How do you rebrand your way out of that?

[Mongrel]

In the meantime since God has been with humans since recorded history,

Ermm - that should be Gods. There were plenty around before the Xian version came along, why do you think the first commandment is "You shall worship no other gods but me". I've always taken that as acknowledgement of other gods.



The way I see it, the primitive peoples did not know about an infinite God, and they had less trouble with their kinds of gods; trouble started when when we began to propound a God that is infinite.

The 'primitive peoples' did have the concept of infinity and infinite gods, they just had a smaller infinity. How many of the creation myths use use body parts\excretions (either theirs or someone else's) to create the sky, firmament, oceans, stars etc.


Since we cannot arrive at absolute certainty independent of our mind's way of knowing and thinking, then the existence of God or His inexistence is beyond absolute certainty.

But the balance is far more on the side of "doesn't exist", being an atheist doesn't require the huge leap of faith (maybe a stumble ;))


Better to work on the psychology of atheists and theists, and seek to reduce the disadvantages of belief in God and increase the advantages, for both theists and atheists alike.

So you want to cherry pick the good bits, shuffle the nasty bits under the carpet and let everyone get warm and fuzzy about god.
Why?
What advantages does belief in a magic sky fairy give me?
Why is the god you're pimping for any better or more valid than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Why should we abandon logic and reason so you can feel better about yourself?

[Allo Allo]

My penny’s worth which might or might not be to the point(me being a little confused as to which point that might be)…well anyway...

You see, you are suggesting the impossible! The rules are written in all the dogma, creed and the holy books. What once seemed like a good idea to some inspired person, has been deformed into a hideous thing by generations of people following on. Which religion do YOU suggest might dismantle its control structure and bankrupt itself in the process? It really IS about MONEY,POWER AND INFLUENCE. It's dangerous. I can't see how any good in it can make up for the suffering of mind it creates in people who don't "conform" - guilt, fear, "stillborn" minds that can cripple people for life!

What are the good parts, the benefits of religion? I cant see any myself at the moment - but I'm listening. If you are thinking that religious people are sometimes reported to be healthier and more positive, I don’t think myself that this same health and positivism cannot be found in Athiests too. It is to do with “enthusiasm for living” rather than religion. Love, compassion, altruism, art, delight, wonder, awe, generousness, humour, caring, etc are all aspects of Athiesm - even trancendence!

Science suggests strongly that there is NO God. If science would discover that there IS some form of natural “ground” in which evolution can happen – maybe that we live in “conciousness” somehow – then that would satisfy those who are already suggesting such a thing. And it might make a difference to Athiests.

But it would not satisfy the fundamentalist religious groups one jot – they would go on in the same unacceptable way.

THEY ARE THE PROBLEM!

I don’t see a solution – I weep! :'(

[ergry]

Look at it this way: the belief in God is a commodity which is in demand by humans, except articulate atheists who are like theists emotionally actuated.

There are smart guys who dispense the belief in God to eager humans who need this commodity.

Now, articulate atheists, your task is to provide some commodity to replace and render superfluous the commodity of belief in God.

For this purpose, you might consult marketing experts, they are extremely effective in creating new needs never before experienced by humans, like underarm anti-perspirant.


If atheists aspire to govern fellow humans, then it is to their best interest to seek to reduce the disadvantages of this commodity of belief in God, and increase its advantages.

One advantage of belief in God: it is good for arts which are the stuff of enhanced humanity; one disadvantage of belief in God: believers discriminate against atheists.


How do rulers of fellow humans at present reduce the impact of discrimination from believers against atheists, they enact laws which they enforce with physical coercion to allow on the one side religious liberty, and on the other side also correlatively even though not always very explicitly, irreligious liberty.



If atheists would rule over fellow humans, then strive to be statesmen who practice the policy of catering to everyone's commodity but keep in control of everyone's avidity of his kind of commodity.


Can atheists rule on a platform of atheism? The Russian Bolsheviks tried that, they gave up ultimately; now elsewhile Bolsheviks are ostentatiously chanting praises to God with church leaders in public.


So, what else is new?



ergry

[Jocky]

Now, articulate atheists, your task is to provide some commodity to replace and render superfluous the commodity of belief in God. For this purpose, you might consult marketing experts, they are extremely effective in creating new needs never before experienced by humans, like underarm anti-perspirant

There is nothing new about the human needs which religion answers. People have wanted to regulate behaviour and assauge the fear of death since forever.

Finding a way of answering these needs without resorting to faith in sky pixies is not on a par with selling deodorant. It is much harder than that. I do not agree with your analogy of belief as a commodity, susceptible to marketing strategies. IMO, people do not generally adopt religious belief because they see a snazzy advert, nor will they abandon it in large numbers for that kind of reason.


If atheists aspire to govern fellow humans ...

HUH?? Who said that atheists wanted to rule over fellow humans? Straw man here, I suspect.


One advantage of belief in God: it is good for arts which are the stuff of enhanced humanity

Do you seriously consider this to be the biggest advantage of belief in God? I'd have thought there are a lot of things which most believers would rank a lot higher than patronage of the Arts!

[Mongrel]

<snip>except articulate atheists who are like theists emotionally actuated.


You you give your reasoning for this oft repeated statement please. Most of us here have said that atheism (or weak agnosticism) is the end of a journey that starts when an individual starts thinking about what religion is, what it's founding is based on and what it adds to their life.

Oh, and you seemed to have missed these questions;

So you want to cherry pick the good bits, shuffle the nasty bits under the carpet and let everyone get warm and fuzzy about god.
Why?
What advantages does belief in a magic sky fairy give me?
Why is the god you're pimping for any better or more valid than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Why should we abandon logic and reason so you can feel better about yourself?

P.S. I have no interest in ruling anyone, it sounds far too much like hard work

[Cuddles]

Look at it this way: the belief in God is a commodity which is in demand by humans, except articulate atheists who are like theists emotionally actuated.

As I said, and you conveniently ignored, atheism is not an emotional choice, it is simply a rational one.


There are smart guys who dispense the belief in God to eager humans who need this commodity.

Now, articulate atheists, your task is to provide some commodity to replace and render superfluous the commodity of belief in God.

Firstly, what makes you think everyone here is an atheist? Secondly, what makes you think we have any kind of "task"?


For this purpose, you might consult marketing experts, they are extremely effective in creating new needs never before experienced by humans, like underarm anti-perspirant.

Who says perspirant was not needed before it was invented? People have always washed. Persipirant was just a way of making the effects of washing last longer. no new need at all.


If atheists aspire to govern fellow humans

We don't. What the hell are you talking about?


then it is to their best interest to seek to reduce the disadvantages of this commodity of belief in God, and increase its advantages.

And this makes even less sense. In order to persuade people that we are correct in our belief that there is no god, we should make a belief in god more useful. Can I have some of whatever you've been smoking?


One advantage of belief in God: it is good for arts which are the stuff of enhanced humanity;

Care to provide any evidence for these assertions? Just because people produce religious themed art does not mean art does not exist without religion. It simply means that art exists and some people choose religion as the subject of art. People also paint trees, does this mean art would be less good if trees didn't exist? In any case, what do you think you mean by "enhanced humanity"?


one disadvantage of belief in God: believers discriminate against atheists.

That's not a disadvantage of belief in god. It is a disadvantage of believing anything that is not the mainstream belief. In this case it is a disadvantage of being an atheist. However, in the UK at least, I don't think is true anyway.


How do rulers of fellow humans at present reduce the impact of discrimination from believers against atheists, they enact laws which they enforce with physical coercion to allow on the one side religious liberty, and on the other side also correlatively even though not always very explicitly, irreligious liberty.

Again, it's not religious vs. athesit, it's popular belief against less popular beliefs. Do you really think discrimination against athesists is any kind of problem in the UK? Have you not noticed the discrimination against Muslims, Jews, other Christians, blacks, foreigners, women, the young, the old, the stupid?


If atheists would rule over fellow humans, then strive to be statesmen who practice the policy of catering to everyone's commodity but keep in control of everyone's avidity of his kind of commodity.

Why do you think atheists want to rule anything?


Can atheists rule on a platform of atheism? The Russian Bolsheviks tried that, they gave up ultimately; now elsewhile Bolsheviks are ostentatiously chanting praises to God with church leaders in public.

Seriously, you're nuts, aren't you?

[Matt]

Look at it this way: the belief in God is a commodity which is in demand by humans, except articulate atheists who are like theists emotionally actuated.

I'm curious. Having read this thread I note that you keep making this statement as if you believe it and as if it is a belief that is dear to you. Yet when the statement is countered you do not address the argument as if it doesn't really matter to you.

I'd call myself ignostic and I say that I reached that position through logical debate alone.

Of course I'm an emotional being and emotions were evident during the process of reaching that conclusion but the cogent issue is that those emotions did not effect the conclusion. As such I don't consider it an emotional actuated belief.

Perhaps I'm unaware of a way in which my emotions influenced my debates and you are aware of a reason that such events must be applicable to all brands of atheist and agnostic. If so would you care to enlighten me.

[ergry]

There are at present all kinds of the most wicked criminals who don't believe in God, but they don't ever bother to write one single word to prove to fellow humans the non-existence of God -- because unlike articulate atheists they are not emotionally moved (pun not intended).


ergry

[Mongrel]

There are at present all kinds of the most wicked criminals who don't believe in God, but they don't ever bother to write one single word to prove to fellow humans the non-existence of God -- because unlike articulate atheists they are not emotionally moved (pun not intended).
ergry

And there are many more wicked criminals who express a belief in God, what does this prove. Apart from that I have no idea what you're trying to convey here...

[Alumno deVerum]

Nope.

Yep! Uless your a mystic. Are you?

[Mongrel]

Yep! Uless your a mystic. Are you?

Wow! Two months for such a.....succinct answer. Care to elaborate?

[Alumno deVerum]

Well I'll tell you why I don't post much. The answers I get generally can be found in the original post. Istead of just skimming over it try actually reading it all the way through.Also there is a tendency to purposelly or not to distort what I wrote so it can be put in a form it can be refuted. Trouble is when you do that you haven't really refuted the problem at all. You've just swept it under the rug were it peeks out from time totime to vex you. Your never going to refute it that way. Try harder!!!!

[Alumno deVerum]

Alumno, this theoretical flatline "God" you postulate: do you think it can actually do anything - and if so, what?

UMMMMM NOPE Why should IT do what we think IT feels constrained to do.

Maybe a good watch maker perfers a self winding time piece and god wodn't have to worry about constantly mantainingnig and he, she i,or What and they can just chill.ormaybe I just dont ask for stuf

[Araneus]

Also there is a tendency to purposelly or not to distort what I wrote so it can be put in a form it can be refuted.

Maybe they are attempting to put what you wrote in a form where it actually makes sense?

[Cuddles]

Yep! Uless your a mystic. Are you?

Nope.

[Jocky]

UMMMMM NOPE ... Maybe a good watch maker perfers a self winding time piece

Hurrah, a straight answer to a simple question! Thank you.

OK, so you don't think that this variant of God can actually do anything, and that creation is (metaphorically) "self-winding". Fine.

Given this premise, here is my next simple question:

What is the functional difference between a God who cannot do anything, and no God at all?

[ergry]

--------------------
Originally Posted by ergry
There are at present all kinds of the most wicked criminals who don't believe in God, but they don't ever bother to write one single word to prove to fellow humans the non-existence of God -- because unlike articulate atheists they are not emotionally moved (pun not intended).
ergry---------------------

And there are many more wicked criminals who express a belief in God, what does this prove. Apart from that I have no idea what you're trying to convey here...

You are not aware that we are at this point of my messages here concerned with what I call articulate atheists, who take the trouble to disprove the existence of God, namely, because they are emotionally moved.

My point is that both theists and atheists are taking the trouble to prove or disprove the existence of God because they are emotionally involved, that theism and atheism are emotional actuations; but the existence itself of God cannot be proven to certainty, like we can prove the existence of Westminster Palace to certainty.


ergry

[ergry]

I like to return to the idea of atheists being emotionally moved, that they are specifically angry at the God of the traditional theists represented by Christians, Muslims, and Judaists, and they are also angry at these latters; more correctly, atheists are first angry at the traditional theists and then consequently angry at their kind of a God.

You see that very clearly, the emotional anger, because they always point out the acts of this God which they can't shall we use the word stomach.

But the idea of a God who is impervious to the anger of people who are angry at the God of the Christians, Muslims, and Judaists, because He has not done anything attributed to Him by His traditional believers, wouldn't that concept and existence of God be all right insofar as the anger of atheists is concerned? i.e., no more anger at Him?

What kind of a God would that be? Just a God that is creator of all things but not involved in humanity's needs, desires, greed, and fears, envy, etc. among themselves?

What would the atheists say about such a God, the first cause of everything but not involved in the wickedness and goodness of man as man understands wickedness and goodness?


ergry

[Mongrel]

You are not aware that we are at this point of my messages here concerned with what I call articulate atheists, who take the trouble to disprove the existence of God, namely, because they are emotionally moved.

My point is that both theists and atheists are taking the trouble to prove or disprove the existence of God because they are emotionally involved, that theism and atheism are emotional actuations; but the existence itself of God cannot be proven to certainty, like we can prove the existence of Westminster Palace to certainty.
ergry


I only take the trouble to disprove god(s) when people start preaching at me, I generally couldn't give a rats arse what you believe if you keep it to yourself and don't harm anyone.

I like to return to the idea of atheists being emotionally moved, that they are specifically angry at the God of the traditional theists represented by Christians, Muslims, and Judaists, and they are also angry at these latters; more correctly, atheists are first angry at the traditional theists and then consequently angry at their kind of a God.

Once more for the deaf people - My decision to become an Atheist had to do with rationally thinking about religion and what a crock it was, anger only comes in to it when stupid preachy people a) Are in effect calling me a liar and b) Continuously mis-represent my position to argue against it, it's called a strawman

But the idea of a God who is impervious to the anger of people who are angry at the God of the Christians, Muslims, and Judaists, because He has not done anything attributed to Him by His traditional believers, wouldn't that concept and existence of God be all right insofar as the anger of atheists is concerned? i.e., no more anger at Him?

What kind of a God would that be? Just a God that is creator of all things but not involved in humanity's needs, desires, greed, and fears, envy, etc. among themselves?

What would the atheists say about such a God,

There are no gods and there is no proof of gods.
See, simple

[ergry]

Is there really a way to prove the non-existence of God?

Of course we have first before anything else to define what we understand by God, before we can proceed to disprove it -- or prove it.

What then is God or how should we define God in order to disprove His existence?

Perhaps tentatively we might define God as an entity which is the source understood in any way of the universe and distinct from the universe.

On that definition of God, can we prove that there is no God?

I submit it is impossible for man at present to disprove the existence of God, I say for man to make it explicit that we are dealing with disproof by man before man of God: we are in fact not disproving to anyone but to man himself from man himself the existence of God.

Now, we can only disprove something to not exist from what we know of anything and everything; but do we know anything and everything that we can know at present -- keep in mind that I am talking about anything and everything we can know, not about things we cannot know in any way at all.

Since -- and no one I would imagine will challenge this statement -- we do not know at present anything and everything we can know at any time and specifically in the future, and since also we cannot otherwise disprove the existence of anything if not on the basis of our present knowledge; and further since God is one of the whole set of anything and everything that we would want to know to exist or to not exist, wherefore on the basis of our present knowledge we cannot disprove the existence of God; and since we cannot disprove the existence of God, we cannot or are not allowed to claim that God does not exist.


Summing up: our knowledge at present does not qualify us to disprove the existence of God, and therefore we cannot claim that God does not exist; the most we can do is be angry at the God of the Christians, Muslims, and Judaists, owing to the way they make their God do things which make us angry at them and their God Who is supposed to side with them.

But we don't subscribe to that kind of a personalistic God; at most we have a construct of God as the source of the universe and distinct from the universe.


ergry

[Mongrel]

You know, that's an awful lot of words to say "Pascals Wager".

So by your 'reasoning (http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2007/03/doggerel-69-you-cant-disprove-woo.html)' ::) I should also believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Unicorn, Leprechauns, Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of my garden?

So putting aside that we can't disprove the existence of god(s) can you present any meaningful evidence for their existence?

[ergry]

I think we should still have to answer the question whether we can disprove the existence of God as defined, the source of the universe in any way but distinct from the universe -- before we bring in the "Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Unicorn, Leprechauns, Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of [your] garden."

However, we can also ask the question whether we can disprove the existence of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Unicorn, Leprechauns, Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of [your] garden." That is also a legitimate question, but not a solemn one, because the objects are emotionally set forth to bring up humor owing to our peculiar cultural conditioning.

But first, the question of whether we can disprove the existence of God. That I submit is a legitimate question and is of concern to peoples and nations.


Yes, you ask for evidence; however, before you ask for evidence you must still first face the question of whether you can disprove the existence of something, for which you want to establish the absence of evidence for its existence.

It seems that the adage "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a valid principle of reasoning. Can you be certain of the non-existence of extra-terrestrial intelligent life because you cannot find evidence for it?


However, if I may, there is a way to prove the non-existence of God, namely, by inspection of the definition. So, examine my definition of God, the source of the universe but distinct from the universe, and tell me if you can see any indication at all that even the idea of God as defined is impossible.


If you apply the principle of disproof by inspection of definition, then by that principle I submit you cannot disprove either the existence of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Unicorn, Leprechauns, Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of [your] garden."

--------------------

My point has always been to show that theism and atheism are emotional stances of people, not logical conclusions.

Let us ask the computer experts whether they can produce a program by which the computer can establish that God does not exist; because a computer is not an emotional entity therefore it will save us from any conclusion, apparent that is, which is basically or essentially founded upon emotion. What do you think?

-------------------

If you accept that both theists and atheists are emotionally motivated, what should they both specially the theists guard against? Guard against violence on each other owing to their emotions.

Is that possible? Of course it is possible, by education and training. For example, people get emotional in sports but they don't get violent except those who are not educated and properly self-controlled, and such people are the very exiguous rare minorities; another example, in arts people are emotional but they never get violent.

So, perhaps, and this is a serious proposal from my part, make God a component of sports and/or a component of arts, then both theists and atheists can get along pretty well, just like civilized, educated, well self-controlled fans of one or the other football team or cultivators of this or that school of painting.


ergry

[Mongrel]

I think we should still have to answer the question whether we can disprove the existence of God as defined, the source of the universe in any way but distinct from the universe -- before we bring in the "Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Unicorn, Leprechauns, Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of [your] garden."

However, we can also ask the question whether we can disprove the existence of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Unicorn, Leprechauns, Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of [your] garden." That is also a legitimate question, but not a solemn one, because the objects are emotionally set forth to bring up humor owing to our peculiar cultural conditioning.

But first, the question of whether we can disprove the existence of God. That I submit is a legitimate question and is of concern to peoples and nations.


Yes, you ask for evidence; however, before you ask for evidence you must still first face the question of whether you can disprove the existence of something, for which you want to establish the absence of evidence for its existence.

It seems that the adage "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a valid principle of reasoning. Can you be certain of the non-existence of extra-terrestrial intelligent life because you cannot find evidence for it?


However, if I may, there is a way to prove the non-existence of God, namely, by inspection of the definition. So, examine my definition of God, the source of the universe but distinct from the universe, and tell me if you can see any indication at all that even the idea of God as defined is impossible.


If you apply the principle of disproof by inspection of definition, then by that principle I submit you cannot disprove either the existence of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Unicorn, Leprechauns, Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of [your] garden."

Way to read the answer, I said previously "
So putting aside that we can't disprove the existence of god(s) can you present any meaningful evidence for their existence?

--------------------


My point has always been to show that theism and atheism are emotional stances of people, not logical conclusions.
And your point is wrong. I can discuss emotionally a stance I came to logically.


Let us ask the computer experts whether they can produce a program by which the computer can establish that God does not exist; because a computer is not an emotional entity therefore it will save us from any conclusion, apparent that is, which is basically or essentially founded upon emotion. What do you think?
<99.9999999999E% chance god doesn't exist, don't bother believing (just a WAG)

So putting aside that we can't disprove the existence of god(s) can you present any meaningful evidence for their existence?

-------------------


If you accept that both theists and atheists are emotionally motivated, I don't and have never said so

what should they both specially the theists guard against? Guard against violence on each other owing to their emotions.

Is that possible? Of course it is possible, by education and training. For example, people get emotional in sports but they don't get violent except those who are not educated and properly self-controlled, and such people are the very exiguous rare minorities; another example, in arts people are emotional but they never get violent.
Bollocks - try drinking in Epsom one Friday, near the large Arts college there.
Anyway, education has nothing to do with violence, look at the football gangs of the late '80s and early '90s. You know those ones which were run by stockbrokers and city men. I imagine if you asked them that the huge majority would be self confessed theists


So, perhaps, and this is a serious proposal from my part, make God a component of sports and/or a component of arts, then both theists and atheists can get along pretty well, just like civilized, educated, well self-controlled fans of one or the other football team or cultivators of this or that school of painting.
Why? What's so funky about your god that you want to force it upon me and everyone else who doesn't give a crap? So, perhaps, and this is a serious proposal from my part, leave god(s) out of it, then both theists and atheists will get along pretty well

[ergry]

[...]

What's so funky about your god that you want to force it upon me and everyone else who doesn't give a crap? So, perhaps, and this is a serious proposal from my part, leave god(s) out of it, then both theists and atheists will get along pretty well

That is an eloquent example of emotionalism in atheism.

Better that atheists who are not prone to emotionalism call themselves nontheists, so that discussions about God or non-God can be conducted calmly on cognitive content, not affective moods. Nontheism to my impression is a better term for thinkers who are seeking the ways and means to disprove the existence of God.


Have a good day -- that is an emotional utterance, but there is no anger in it; my proposal as always is that both theists and atheists or better nontheists should not be angry at each other.

Is that possible? Of course it is possible if both adopt the attitude of laboratory workers in search of the fact or fiction about God or non-God.


ergry

[Araneus]

I love sophistry. Why bother making a cogent argument when you can let Roget's Thesaurus do it for you?

[Cuddles]

I like to return to the idea of atheists being emotionally moved, that they are specifically angry at the God of the traditional theists represented by Christians, Muslims, and Judaists, and they are also angry at these latters; more correctly, atheists are first angry at the traditional theists and then consequently angry at their kind of a God.

Nope. God doesn't exist. It is impossible to be angry at something that doesn't exist. If someone is angry at god, they are not an atheist.


Is there really a way to prove the non-existence of God?

Of course we have first before anything else to define what we understand by God, before we can proceed to disprove it -- or prove it.

What then is God or how should we define God in order to disprove His existence?

Perhaps tentatively we might define God as an entity which is the source understood in any way of the universe and distinct from the universe.

On that definition of God, can we prove that there is no God?

You're going at this exactly backwards. As I have explained before, it is not possible to disprove god as a general concept, because it is always possible to retreat to a god of the gaps argument. But it is not up to us to define god, it is up to those who actually believe. Your definition is not the one used by the vast majority of people. The definition actually used by, for example, Christians, makes definite claims and can therefore be disproved.

Using your logic of us choosing a definition of god which we then try to disprove, I shall define god as a large, pink marshmallow. It used to exist but I ate it, therefore there god does not exist. See how easy it is to prove anything when you make up your own definitions?

[Mongrel]

That is an eloquent example of emotionalism in atheism.

Better that atheists who are not prone to emotionalism call themselves nontheists, so that discussions about God or non-God can be conducted calmly on cognitive content, not affective moods. Nontheism to my impression is a better term for thinkers who are seeking the ways and means to disprove the existence of God.


Have a good day -- that is an emotional utterance, but there is no anger in it; my proposal as always is that both theists and atheists or better nontheists should not be angry at each other.

Is that possible? Of course it is possible if both adopt the attitude of laboratory workers in search of the fact or fiction about God or non-God.


ergry

Since you're bringing the same mis-represented and discounted arguments to the table I'm just going to cut and paste my previous answers.


Once more for the deaf people - My decision to become an Atheist had to do with rationally thinking about religion and what a crock it was, anger only comes in to it when stupid preachy people a) Are in effect calling me a liar and b) Continuously mis-represent my position to argue against it, it's called a strawman

[Dr B]

:fsm: :fsm2: :fsm1:.....leaps to mind

[ergry]

[...]

Using your logic of us choosing a definition of god which we then try to disprove, I shall define god as a large, pink marshmallow. It used to exist but I ate it, therefore there god does not exist. See how easy it is to prove anything when you make up your own definitions?


.

I still don't see non-emotionalism from my correspondent parties in this thread.

Proof of that is that they bring in concrete emotion-loaded words like pink marshmallow and also graphics which are emotionally loaded.


And that is what I want to bring out, articulate atheists are emotionally motivated, and the proper study for them is to search the emotional ingredients in their actuations.


Okay, suppose we be non-emotional and just ask ourselves here these two questions, and state the why -- and please, no emotionally loaded thoughts and words:


1. Can we humans today prove the existence of God?
2. Can we humans today disprove the existence of God?

If you have to define God, then also avoid using emotionally loaded words like pink marshmallow and certainly no emotionally loaded graphics.


I myself define God as the source of the universe in any way but distincty from the universe.

I believe that is one concept that all peoples who are now into theism or atheism can agree on; but pink marshmallow and anger-loaded graphics, I submit that rationally inspired people would not accept such definitions or definitions thus worded.


When we shall have arrived at a consensus on these two questions without emotionalism, then we can claim to have ascended to a superior level of knowledge on this affair.


Until then we will continue to engage in shouting instead of reasoning.


Yrreg

[Jocky]

Here is a straightforward response, devoid of emotional content. I'm an agnostic, so the label of "emotionally actuated atheism" (whatever that is) does not apply to me.


I myself define God as the source of the universe in any way but distinct from the universe

OK, by your definition:


1. Can we humans today prove the existence of God?

No. By the definition given above, 'God' is not a falsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to gather evidence which could be used to support such a proposition.


2. Can we humans today disprove the existence of God?

We cannot "disprove" either 'God' or anything else. One cannot prove negatives. I think this is the point which Cuddles was making with the marshmallow comment.

It is logically reasonable to assume that a hypothesis is null unless and until there is positive evidence for it. The fact that there is no absolute disproof of something does not represent positive evidence for it, and therefore is irrelevant to establishing the truth if a proposition. This is an extremely important point, which I think lies at the core of this debate.

I anticipate that these answers to your two questions (at least the general thrust, if not the exact wording) may elucidate some degree of consensus from other posters in this thread. Do you think we could now ascend to "a superior level of knowledge on this affair"?

[Cuddles]

Proof of that is that they bring in concrete emotion-loaded words like pink marshmallow and also graphics which are emotionally loaded.
This has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read. Emotionally loaded marshmallows? Seriously, what have you been smoking and where can I get some?

[Mongrel]

I anticipate that these answers to your two questions (at least the general thrust, if not the exact wording) may elucidate some degree of consensus from other posters in this thread. Do you think we could now ascend to "a superior level of knowledge on this affair"?

I believe that I have stated this several times, maybe he'll listen to you though ;)

[Jocky]

I believe that I have stated this several times, maybe he'll listen to you though ;)

Yeah, I know you have.

Thing is, I'm not an emotional atheist like what you are, and thanks to my remorseless agnostic logic (inherited from my Vulcan father, you know :smiley: ), I can express my thoughts without all that messy fear and anger getting in the way.

;)

[ergry]

Jocky
Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Banbury, Oxfordshire
Posts: 734

Re: Paradox of Nothingness short version

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a straightforward response, devoid of emotional content. I'm an agnostic, so the label of "emotionally actuated atheism" (whatever that is) does not apply to me.



Quote:
I myself define God as the source of the universe in any way but distinct from the universe

OK, by your definition:



Quote:
1. Can we humans today prove the existence of God?

No. By the definition given above, 'God' is not a falsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to gather evidence which could be used to support such a proposition.



Quote:
2. Can we humans today disprove the existence of God?

We cannot "disprove" either 'God' or anything else. One cannot prove negatives. I think this is the point which Cuddles was making with the marshmallow comment.

It is logically reasonable to assume that a hypothesis is null unless and until there is positive evidence for it. The fact that there is no absolute disproof of something does not represent positive evidence for it, and therefore is irrelevant to establishing the truth if a proposition. This is an extremely important point, which I think lies at the core of this debate.

I anticipate that these answers to your two questions (at least the general thrust, if not the exact wording) may elucidate some degree of consensus from other posters in this thread. Do you think we could now ascend to "a superior level of knowledge on this affair"?







Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongrel
I believe that I have stated this several times, maybe he'll listen to you though

Yeah, I know you have.

Thing is, I'm not an emotional atheist like what you are, and thanks to my remorseless agnostic logic (inherited from my Vulcan father, you know :smiley: ), I can express my thoughts without all that messy fear and anger getting in the way.

;)


Thanks, Jocky, for your non-emotional reactions to my questions.


I understand that we both, you and I, agree that God as I define it and you accept it, namely, the source in any way of the universe and distinct from it, cannot be proved or disproved as regards His existence.

You are now asking me what superior level of knowledge I am referring to when we have now arrived at the consensus.

First, I like to invite you to consider that all our knowledge and attempts at knowledge are from the standpoint of man and by man's resources and labor, that is, us, you and me, and also every human, in particular persons who can and will consider an issue non-emotionally, like laboratory workers examining a substance like protein or a substance like a cancerous tissue.

The superior knowledge that I like to invite you and me to go into is to find out why or on what motivations people who call themselves or identify themselves as theists or atheists, why they are emotional about their convictions -- when if they would be unemotional they would accept like you and me that God's existence is not at present susceptible to proofs by man and to man.

What I mean is that all attempts at proving or disproving the existence of God having been shown to be for man at present impossible, then we must, persons like you and me, transit to another domain or ascend if I may use the term to a higher level of discourse or examination, namely:


Why or what are the motivations on which theists and atheists are moved by to be attached to their respective mentality of theism and atheism.

I think you say it very clearly, anger and fear, are the emotions involved, and we want to search for other emotions as well, then determine what objects are sought by persons who are moved by anger and fear and other emotions, for which they are attached to their theism and atheism.

-----------------

At no time in the history of human learning have we possessed so much knowledge of human actuations as today in the philosophy and science of psychology.

I submit that psychology, the philosophy and science of human actuations, is the most propitious instrument for the study of theism and atheism.


ergry

[Allo Allo]

I’m emotional! I enjoy being emotional. I feel ALIVE when something makes me het up – or delighted. I do it to myself on purpose! It’s my way of keeping fit so I don’t get to eighty and discover I’ve already been dead for twenty years…..

Are you talking about aggressiveness rather?

I made a nice emotional point a while back that whatever way anyone defines/proves/not proves God – it will not change the way fundamentalist religions define God – so what’s the point of atheists “ascending to a higher way of thinking”?

In my life I have been hassled – even persecuted by religious fundamentalists, but never by atheists. So I don’t have a problem with atheists – only with “religion”. Do you have a problem with something too? I wish you were more succinct in your posts.

What would be the point of “we want to search for other emotions as well, then determine what objects are sought by persons who are moved by anger and fear and other emotions, for which they are attached to their theism and atheism.” To do what?



M
:knitter:

[Jocky]

we both ... agree that God as I define it and you accept it, namely, the source in any way of the universe and distinct from it ...

Your definition of 'God' is not exactly the same as the one I would have given, but I am willing to accept your definition for the purposes of this discussion.

That's how it goes with the G word, there are as many definitions as there are people ...


... cannot be proved or disproved as regards His existence

I agree with that as far as it goes, but do not omit the important corollary I stated above:


It is logically reasonable to assume that a hypothesis is null unless and until there is positive evidence for it

In other words, it is possible to hold an atheistic position on logical grounds. It is therefore not a necessary prerequisite of atheism to have an emotional response to the concept of God.

I would not deny that there are atheists who exhibit a degree of emotional attachment to their position, but that is just human nature in action. Examples of such behaviour can be found in proponents of any view.


I think you say it very clearly, anger and fear, are the emotions involved

I stress I do not consider that Mongrel personally was exhibiting these emotions. Far be it from me to delve into the emotions of others, but I'd guess that his reaction would better be characterised as exasperation.


we want to ... determine what objects are sought by persons who are moved by anger and fear and other emotions, for which they are attached to their theism and atheism

I think I now see the central topic which you wish to discuss. Am I right in thinking that we are talking around the following question:

"What motivates the emotions which lead people strongly to believe or disbelieve in God?"

[Here I repeat my important caveat once more: it is possible to hold an atheistic position on logical grounds, and therefore atheism is not necessarily emotionally actuated - although it could be in some cases.]

OK, let's begin the discussion here.

I would judge that Fear could actuate theism. For instance, Fear is an important motivation underlying Pascal's Wager - fear of the consequences of not believing in a God who later turns out to exist after all, and then proceeds to flambe you for all eternity in a fit of pique.

[Jocky]

What would be the point of “we want to search for other emotions as well, then determine what objects are sought by persons who are moved by anger and fear and other emotions, for which they are attached to their theism and atheism.”

To do what?

Good question! Personally I'm sad enough to talk about such things just for fun, but I'd be interested in hearing ergry's answer to Allo's point.

[ergry]

Quote:
Originally Posted by allo allo
What would be the point of “we want to search for other emotions as well, then determine what objects are sought by persons who are moved by anger and fear and other emotions, for which they are attached to their theism and atheism.”

To do what?

Good question! Personally I'm sad enough to talk about such things just for fun, but I'd be interested in hearing ergry's answer to Allo's point.



What I am trying to do is to search for the facts.

If it is said and accepted that ars gratia artis, then we can also postulate and I for one subscribe to the proposition, that scientia gratia scientiae.

What is the practical value of such an inquiry?

I personally also find a lot of things I do everyday asking me back the question, what is the point of it all?

Well, there is life in me and I do want to stay alive and keep busy and live long and enjoyably, until I die.

So also I do have an intelligence which in the present context is moved to search for the facts in the emotions that are responsible for theism and atheism in man or among men.

When we have the facts, then statesmen who are in the business or avocation of governing men might have some good use for the facts, all for the better guidance of men, i.e., so that everyone lives peaceably with everyone else whatever theism and atheism.

That is all I have about what is the point in searching for the emotions involved in theism as in atheism.

My keen interest has always been in the psychology of man, because I see man first as quintessentially a psychological life form than a logical one.


If I may, I am trying my utmost best to be academic in this thread, namely, to adopt a neutral emotional stance, or impartial attitude except for curiosity, but I notice that some posters here are always into an antagonistic posture and similarly instead of being rational, taking up almost always a posture of ridiculing the topic.

That is also most conspicuously an example of emotionalism, which is perfectly understandable because as I say, man is a psychological life form and very rarely if at all possible, a logical life form.


But we would want to be purely oriented toward the facts instead of venting out feelings, positive or negative toward each other.


ergry

[Jocky]

I for one subscribe to the proposition, that scientia gratia scientiae

This discussion isn't really scientific, I'd say it lies somewhere between psychology and philosophy. That's not to say it isn't worth talking about of course, but it's important not to claim scientific veracity and rigour where it is not warranted.


When we have the facts, then statesmen who are in the business or avocation of governing men might have some good use for the facts, all for the better guidance of men, i.e., so that everyone lives peaceably with everyone else whatever theism and atheism

Very laudable. I am in favour of people living to gether peacably and respecting each others' rights to freedom of speech. Who isn't?


I notice that some posters here are always into an antagonistic posture

In the spirit of rational enquiry, let's move on past that, shall we? It's all getting a bit ad hominem.

I posted above an example of an emotional response which I contend may actuate religious belief.


I would judge that Fear could actuate theism. For instance, Fear is an important motivation underlying Pascal's Wager - fear of the consequences of not believing in a God who later turns out to exist after all, and then proceeds to flambe you for all eternity in a fit of pique

Ergry, would you care to advance the discussion by addressing this post, or by proposing another example?

[Cuddles]

But we would want to be purely oriented toward the facts instead of venting out feelings, positive or negative toward each other.

You don't seem to understand any of our points. It is not emotional to point out your logical fallacies. Asking for a definition of "god" is not emotional, it is absolutely fundamental to the discussion. Unfortunately, this is where your biggest problem comes from. You ask if god can be proved or disproved. Fair enough, but you have to define which god and, more importantly, you have to realise that anything proved or disproved about that definition of god has no relevance to any other definition.

The definition you have chosen is a disinterested creator who has no influence on the running of the world. This is all well and good, and you are correct that this cannot be proven or disproven in any way. However, it is not the god that the vast majority of the world believe in. Anything you conclude about this god does not mean anything to those who don't believe in it. You have specifically mentioned Christians, Muslims and Jews, but the god you are choosing to actually discuss has nothing to do with them. If you want to debate the existence of the Christian god, you must use the Christian definition.

You seem to think that if we force a certain definition of god onto everyone then we will all agree and all be happy. What you seem to fail to realise is that pretty much the biggest cause of conflict throughout human history has been people trying to force their view of god onto everyone else. The only way to actually have peace (between religions at least) is to accept other people's beliefs, not to try and change them.

[ergry]

Quote:
I for one subscribe to the proposition, that scientia gratia scientiae

This discussion isn't really scientific, I'd say it lies somewhere between psychology and philosophy. That's not to say it isn't worth talking about of course, but it's important not to claim scientific veracity and rigour where it is not warranted.

.
By scientia gratia scientiae I mean by the Latin word scientia knowledge; so the phrase means knowledge for the sake of knowledge; and in the context I want to situate ourselves in, it means knowledge of facts for the sake of the knowledge of facts.





Originally Posted by Jocky
I would judge that Fear could actuate theism. For instance, Fear is an important motivation underlying Pascal's Wager - fear of the consequences of not believing in a God who later turns out to exist after all, and then proceeds to flambe you for all eternity in a fit of pique

Ergry, would you care to advance the discussion by addressing this post, or by proposing another example?



.
Fear is an emotion that is responsible for man's historical suspicion of God's existence; that is a fact.

Aside from fear there are other emotions responsible for man's historical suspicion of God's existence, for example, hope; that is also a fact.



...fear of the consequences of not believing in a God who later turns out to exist after all, and then proceeds to flambe you for all eternity in a fit of pique

The sentence above is emotional. Would you be willing to put it's essential import in an unemotional manner, by doing without the emotionally loaded words, like the following rewriting as an example from my part:


Fear of making either one of two choices to believe in, namely: God exists or God does not exist, which choice could turn out to be contrary to the fact, motivates man to make what he thinks is a more advantageous choice, namely, to believe that God exists, than to believe that God does not exist; because if it should turn out that God does not exist, then he does not have to relate to God, while if it should turn out that God does exist, then he has to relate to God.

We can say that such a way of proceeding in the choice of either one of two options, to believe or to not believe, is man's way of being practical.

Does man have to be practical? Of course man has to be practical, that is man's I submit natural way of dealing with fear and hope when fear and hope have given rise to the suspicion that God exists.

This means that a practical rule of choice is to take the positive option in either one of two opposite alternatives, when taking the positive choice is not to man's estimation an overly deterring inconvenience if at all.

Should man not overcome his fear and hope? He could and I for one is of the opinion that he should; that would take care of the practical need to choose to believe in God's existence than to not believe.

That means every man should exert efforts to grow out of the historical man, which again poses either of two choices for man or everyman who is concerned about God or no God: to grow out of historical man or to not grow out of historical man; and as usual everyman will choose the practical option as he sees practical.

Which alternative option will be chosen by more or most men? For the answer, I submit we have to consult if I am not mistaken, the social psychologists and anthropologists and students of the history of man's practical choices.


ergry

[ergry]

[...]

You seem to think that if we force a certain definition of god onto everyone then we will all agree and all be happy. What you seem to fail to realise is that pretty much the biggest cause of conflict throughout human history has been people trying to force their view of god onto everyone else. The only way to actually have peace (between religions at least) is to accept other people's beliefs, not to try and change them.

.

My definition of God is the following as I have stated already:


The source of the universe in any way, and distinct from the universe.

I submit that is one definition that can serve for the discussion among theists and atheists on what I like to concentrate on, namely, the emotionalism of theism and atheism.

Anyone can accept that kind of a definition whether he be theist or atheist or any kinds of theists or atheists.

What they do with that definition is up to each person, as long as he does not do away with it in the process of adding to the definition.



You seem to think that if we force a certain definition of god onto everyone then we will all agree and all be happy.

As a matter of fact, and correct me if I am mistaken, that is at present what civilization, society, and law, and government, and statesmen, and world organizations like the United Nations and other worldwide humanistic entities are doing, not exactly forcing, but trying with the utmost of efforts to convince people to at least tolerate a common concept of God for everyone whether theists or atheists and whatever kinds of the one group as the other -- by education.

And also by education and by legal control to dissuade and deter all men from the perpetration of violence on each other in the name of their own respective additions to a commonly accepted concept of God.

Modern democratic government precisely seeks to on the one hand allow the belief in God or disbelief in God, but on the other hand to ultimately put away from society those who would perpetrate violence on others in the name of their kind of elaborated belief or disbelief in God.


That is what I am after with my examination on the emotionalism in theism and in atheism.


ergry

[Alumno deVerum]

Hurrah, a straight answer to a simple question! Thank you.

OK, so you don't think that this variant of God can actually do anything, and that creation is (metaphorically) "self-winding". Fine.

Given this premise, here is my next simple question:

What is the functional difference between a God who cannot do anything, and no God at all?

Well It would cause the world to existence but as an unplanned and un controlled epiphenomenon. So the world having no purpose would simply evolve on its own accordding to its own internal dymanics so it must appear to be material even if it isnt. So that which is traditionally called God but I think is better defined as Prime observer, maintains the world simply by being aware of it. That is its sole realtionship and even that is not something decreed. Its observed because it can be observed and for no other reason.

I do find it interesting though that the criticisms of materialism have been completely ignored. Wonder why?

[ergry]

I still submit that the hostile debates between theists and atheists about the existence of God are not conducive at all to anything profitable to man in the big perspectives and in the longest run of human life and society.

Better since the existence of God or the belief in God's existence, theism, is a historical phenomenon with man, and also we can grant that atheism is a historical phenomenon in man, if we would be genuinely human and practical, we should study instead the reasons why men have come to this faith of theism and why men also have come to the opposite position which is to my impression also a belief, namely, that God does not exist, atheism.

That is what I call superior knowledge for man to pursue: the study of the reasons for the belief as also for the disbelief in man, in himself as there is no one else in the universe as we now know the universe who believes and disbelieves in the existence of God, to examine the reasons why for such stances of belief and disbelief: in order since both man the believer and man the disbeliever believe in staying alive and living well, and they can't live apart from each other, then with that kind of superior knowledge both man the believer and man the unbeliever will learn to live together and improve life for both, notwithstanding their impasse as regards the existence and the nonexistence of God.


I shall soon introduce a thread on emotionalism in historical man in theism and in atheism.


ergry

[ergry]

I shall soon introduce a thread on emotionalism in historical man in theism and in atheism.

But is that necessary to a thinking person?

I submit, no it is not necessary.

All we have to do is to read messages in this forum posted by atheism adherents and by theism adherents and see the emotionalism in one as in the other.

And my study is to examine how this emotionalism is manifested, and how we can make people see it in themselves, and motivate people to be able to control it, so that it does not lead to violence, but at most its exercise is undertaken or elicited as in sports and in arts, which I believe is very possible, by education.

----------------------

What I will say now is interesting...


To my impression, the author of this thread, Alumno deVerum, and the undersigned are the only two posters in this thread who have been acting as to be freed of emotionalism, and trying to express thoughts in an emotionally neutral language.

------------------------

There are some issues that I would like to invite Alumno deVerum and everyone to engage our un-emotional attention in, like for example the idea of falsifiability in the belief in God's existence or non-existence, the Pascal's Wager as regards what exactly the man is trying to do unemotionally, and the presence or absence of evidence for the existence or non-existence of God.


There are other issues which have been brought up in this thread, for example, God as pink marshmallow, which though to all appearances in parody just the same can deserve a serious unemotional examination.

Then also, with regard to logic as used by Alumno deVerum, whether it is a discovery of man or an invention of man, and how it is being used to prove or disprove the existence of God; and if it does prove on itself, namely, on the grounds of logic, then does it mean that God exists, just as soil and water and the earthworm exist -- even more than but not contradicting the kind of existence of soil, water, and earthworm.


ergry

[Cuddles]

My definition of God is the following as I have stated already:

The source of the universe in any way, and distinct from the universe.
I submit that is one definition that can serve for the discussion among theists and atheists on what I like to concentrate on, namely, the emotionalism of theism and atheism.

Anyone can accept that kind of a definition whether he be theist or atheist or any kinds of theists or atheists.

What they do with that definition is up to each person, as long as he does not do away with it in the process of adding to the definition.

Once again, this is utter nonsense. Most people do not accept this definition of god. It doesn't matter how much you argue about it, most religious people do not, and will not, believe in your god because they believe in a completely different one. As I said, forcing your own god onto other people has been one of the largest causes of war throughout history. Feel free to argue all you like about your god, but please stop pretending that it is relevant to anyone other than yourself.




As a matter of fact, and correct me if I am mistaken, that is at present what civilization, society, and law, and government, and statesmen, and world organizations like the United Nations and other worldwide humanistic entities are doing, not exactly forcing, but trying with the utmost of efforts to convince people to at least tolerate a common concept of God for everyone whether theists or atheists and whatever kinds of the one group as the other -- by education.

And also by education and by legal control to dissuade and deter all men from the perpetration of violence on each other in the name of their own respective additions to a commonly accepted concept of God.

Modern democratic government precisely seeks to on the one hand allow the belief in God or disbelief in God, but on the other hand to ultimately put away from society those who would perpetrate violence on others in the name of their kind of elaborated belief or disbelief in God.


That is what I am after with my examination on the emotionalism in theism and in atheism.


ergry

Well, since you asked me to, you are mistaken. Very, very mistaken. Noone is trying to force a common concept of god on anyone. What they are trying to do is make people accept other people's beliefs without trying to change them. Pretty much the exact opposite of what you are trying to do.

[ergry]

There are concepts of God, and it is the curiosity of people like myself to find out what are the most elementary common components of these concepts of God, which could be acceptable to all people who do have a concept of God, peoples like Christians, Muslims, and Judaists, and also atheists because they are not believers in God so they must have some concept of God.

Tell me then, cuddles, what are the components of God you perceive to be in the notion of God you as an atheist are not believing in. We can start from that point.


Then we will see which of those components of God you are not believing in can be taken away or not taken away from the sets of components found in the notions of God from Christians, Muslims, and Judaists, and also pantheists whatever.


Yrreg

[Mongrel]

There are concepts of God, and it is the curiosity of people like myself to find out what are the most elementary common components of these concepts of God, which could be acceptable to all people who do have a concept of God

And yet all you have to go on is "God can't be disproved!!!"

You've yet to give me one good reason that believing in god(s) is a good thing (and yes, I accept that my arguments may be emotional - doesn't mean the reasoning behind them is though)

[Cuddles]

There are concepts of God, and it is the curiosity of people like myself to find out what are the most elementary common components of these concepts of God, which could be acceptable to all people who do have a concept of God, peoples like Christians, Muslims, and Judaists, and also atheists because they are not believers in God so they must have some concept of God.

Tell me then, cuddles, what are the components of God you perceive to be in the notion of God you as an atheist are not believing in. We can start from that point.

You still appear to be missing the point. Atheists do not believe in god. That's the whole point. If someone believes in god they are not an atheist. I do not have any notion of god because I do not believe in one. If someone gives me a definition I will happily say that I do not believe in it, but I do not have some magical god in my head that I go around not believing in. I just don't think there is a god.


Then we will see which of those components of God you are not believing in can be taken away or not taken away from the sets of components found in the notions of God from Christians, Muslims, and Judaists, and also pantheists whatever.

Utter nonsense. I don't have my own god that I don't believe in and then compare to everyone else's gods to decide not to believe in them. I don't believe in all those gods. There is no point comparing your definition to these other gods because I don't believe in any of them. That is what the word "atheist" means. "A" - without "theist" - god.

[ergry]

I am an extra terrestrial being with thinking faculty and everything else humans possess except emotions but one, that of curiosity to find out how and why humans think and act the way they do; my present curiosity is about theists and atheists, why they profess to be theists or atheists; and also I have some advice for them, that since they cannot agree on whether God exists or not exists, the one for His existence and the other against, then it is to their common benefit to work out a modus vivendi by which they can exist together to enjoy life while it lasts.

Of course one or the other group has the option to exterminate the other, which option however I notice that the more calm, rational, and unemotionally disturbed among them both are concerned with respecting the right to life of every human and the preservation of their species, whether theist or atheist or disinterested in the whole antinomy between theists and atheists -- which last sentiment should be to my thinking the best emotional advancement of the human species.

However, that is already a very good beginning, at least among both theists and atheists there are persons calm, rational, and pro life who agree that they both have the right to stay alive whether theist or atheist, and both sides will go against any people who want to exterminate theists or atheists or both.





And yet all you have to go on is "God can't be disproved!!!"

You've yet to give me one good reason that believing in god(s) is a good thing (and yes, I accept that my arguments may be emotional - doesn't mean the reasoning behind them is though)

If you want reasons for believing in God because it is good for you, I suggest you ask the theists. I am here only for the curiosity purely academic as in the laboratory on why people are theists and why they are atheists.

My only concern and that is just a luxury because I don't have to undertake that concern for any benefit to myself, is to propose that both theists and atheists act together to not get overly agitated as to perpetrate violence on each other.





You still appear to be missing the point. Atheists do not believe in god. That's the whole point. If someone believes in god they are not an atheist. I do not have any notion of god because I do not believe in one. If someone gives me a definition I will happily say that I do not believe in it, but I do not have some magical god in my head that I go around not believing in. I just don't think there is a god.



Utter nonsense. I don't have my own god that I don't believe in and then compare to everyone else's gods to decide not to believe in them. I don't believe in all those gods. There is no point comparing your definition to these other gods because I don't believe in any of them. That is what the word "atheist" means. "A" - without "theist" - god.


You still appear to be missing the point. Atheists do not believe in god. That's the whole point.

But you are engaged to all appearances in a disturbed way with expatiating about your atheism being more acceptable than the theism of people who believe in God.

I then observe that they are two kinds of people not believing in God: (1) not believing and not doing anything to explain their not believing, (2) not believing but engaged in explaining their not believing. To which kind do you belong?

As an extra terrestrial being possessed of the thinking faculty, I would propose that you keep to the first group, not believing and not engaging yourself in explaining your not believing; that will be to your advantage, you save time, labor, trouble, and thus have more of time and resources of mind and heart to devote to more worthwhile activities.

Better, if you continue in belonging to the first group, then you must owing to your thinking faculty examine why you give time and labor and trouble to explain your not believing in God.



In all events, let us all go about this luxury of exchange of views about theism and atheism calmly, rationally. If anything at all, we are all here for the fun -- I for one being an extra terrestrial is here for the curiosity and that is fun for myself.


ergry

[Allo Allo]

I for one being an extra terrestrial is here for the curiosity and that is fun for myself.
ergry

"AM" - It needs to be AM - which is quite an understandable error under the circumstances.

M
:knitter:

[Cuddles]

I am an extra terrestrial being

Well, I'm convinced.

All hail our alien overlords.

[ergry]

I being an ET invite fellow members of this forum, whether theists or atheists, to give due justice to the author of this thread, Alumno deVerum, by doing commentaries to his first post.


If the world is fundamentally logical then it must have a logical reason for being. But is the world logical? I don't know. But I must assume it is because I can only think logically and it appears to behave logically and that is all the evidence I have to go on. And if it is that means it can be explained.

Assuming the world is logical it seems to me there are two and only two possibilites here; 1- the universe can explain itself because that reason for being is intrinsic to it. 2-the universe is contingent on something else that has a logical reason for being intrinsic to it.

Eternity is a fact I have no problem with but just pushing "causes" back in time (or even outside of time for that matter) one after another without end seems to me to be the wrong way to think about it. It is in my opinion nothing more than a linear version of a circular argument. The system may go back forever but what explains the system itself? Why should it exist at all?

Now do I have any reason to believe the universe can explain itself? Well what is the universe? Science tells me it is an energy field that exists in a continuum, formed in the big bang, that curves in various places and in various degrees. The greater the curvature the greater the energy. Also energy, according to Einstein, is equivilent to matter. There is an argument that presents itself here. If the outward expansion of the universe exactly balances the force of gravity trying to pull it all back in then the curvature of the universe as a whole would be zero. So matter then would also be equal to zero or nothing. That is the universe just popped into being like a virtual particle out of the void because of the inherent uncertainty arising from quantum physics.

This argument attempts to make a connection between something and nothing (if matter is just a form of energy it, too, is equivalent to zero or nothing) but in my opinion it actually fails because it uses the term zero (0) incorrectly.

The fallacy here, it seems to me, is that the argument equates zero meaning "nothing" with zero meaning "no difference". In other words it is ambiguous. I could put an ounce of gold in each pan of a balance scale and it would indidcate zero meaning no difference but I would still have two ounces of gold.

Zero meaning nothing is not the same. You can not divide zero and get any answer other than zero. Half of nothing is still nothing. And since complexity seems to arise from simplicity not the other way around and this seems to be the simplest possible description of the universe (half the energy, gravity, is positive and attractive and goes this way- the other half, the force of the outward expansion, is negative and repulsive and goes the opposite way) I have no reason to assume there is any intrinsic reason for being to be found materially.

Besides even virtual particles seem to require an infusion of pre-existing energy in order to become stable and thus "real" and where did that come from? It appears for uncertainty to explain anything you must first have something to be uncertain about.

In fact the Polish mathematician Jacob Bronowski, author of the book The Ascent Of Man, found the term "uncertainty" so misleading he proposed using the word "tolerences" instead. After all that there are 36 possible outcomes on a roll of two 6 sided dice is certain it is only the actual value that comes up on any specific toss that is unpredictible. Our universe may be the same. Uncertainty may indeed have played a role in its formation and the way it turned out but where did the dice come from? Why is there uncertainty about nothing?

Now again asking, "How can something come from nothing?" may be the wrong question. For the time being we could rephrase it and ask why is there something instead of nothing? Or what is it about nothingness that keeps it from being absolute?

If the world is logical then it is subject to the rules of logic. Terms in a sentence are qualified by the copula using a form of the words is or is not. By applying the words is not to the concept of "being" as a whole you will get a non-arbitrary logical definition of nothingness as "no being" which, since it applies to the concept as a whole, is absolute.

Now here is where the contradiction arises. Ideas are not concrete things but that does not mean they are not something. I can distinguish between a 9 which is an odd number and a square and an 8 which is an even number and not a square. They have different properties and are therefore things in their own right as concepts. But concepts seem to require a mind to exist. That is they are contingent on an observer.

The example I use are stones and coins. I can hold 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but where is the number 9 apart from what I hold in my hand? I can sense no other property they have in common other than they are physical but changing the quantity doesn't seem to affect the physical characteristics of either group. So the number itself is not intrinsic to either group. I can understand the number 9 but I can not point to anything in nature and say this is the number 9 by itself. I can only think about it.

Nothingness is likewise a concept. After all we are thinking about it now. But if it is a concept then nothingness is not nothing. That is a paradox and in logic paradoxes can not exist. What happens when an irresistible force collides with an immovable object? An inconceivable event of course. Paradoxes must be dismissed as inconceivable and nothingness is a paradox therefore I must conclude a "state of nothingness" can not exist. Just saying "non-existence exists" is absurd. The only way to avoid a paradox is to have a state of existence instead of non-existence.

Absolute nothingness is to my mind an impossibility. Absolute means just that. Absolute. No properties at all. Not even potential. That means it can not even be thought of as there would literally be nothing to think about (and no one to think it anyway). But, again, since we are thinking about it nothingness can not be absolute. Nothingness is the only thing we can think of in completely negative terms except for the fact it can be thought of.

Also in logic things must follow or you have a non-sequiter. In the syllogism itself it is the middle term that unites the major and minor premises and leads to a conclusion. In life it is the DNA passed from one generation to the next that permits the evolution of species. And in pool it is the energy transmitted from the stick to the balls that allows the game to be played.

So, following from the definitions just established, whatever that fundemental state is it must also be a concept as that is the only thing being and nothingness have in common. That is, to be clear, the concept of nothingness exists but is self-contradictory and therefore unstable. It must collapse into a state that is stable and non-contradictory. This is not an assertion anything came from absolute nothingness which I hope to have shown I have no reason to believe is possible. And because concepts must be observed by a mind that fundemental concept must be self-referential as there is nothing else to see it. That means it can say I AM, which is the same self-referential foundation of the mind we all share, and thus hold Itself in existence. Therefore it is a self aware observer and since it is fundemantal it is prime. Therfore it is the Prime Observer.

Does this match what I see in the world? Yes. Einstein showed that matter is just energy in particle form. Erwin Schrodinger then showed that energy can be manifested as a wave. Lastly Max Born showed that waves are just probability distributions which are mathematical in nature and mathematics is just the logical organization of numbers which are concepts.

Some materialists argue that numbers are just manifestations of processes in the brain we impose upon the world. But I have no reason to accept that either because it too is a circular argument. You can't just assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material. If the universe and the things in it are basically concept then so is the brain. The brain is an organ made of tissue composed of cells built from organelles fashioned out of atoms which are particles made of energy...

A better tactic I think would be to counter the argument by saying it must be wrong because it holds paradoxes can not exist yet we see paradoxes all around us especially in physics. For example quantum theory says particles are also waves isn't that a paradox? Maybe. Maybe not. To know for sure that was a true paradox and not an illusion that results from our limited experiance we would have to have a complete theory of everything. But we don't. So we must regard any theory that asserts anything paradoxical as incomplete which physics is. In fact there are theories that do seem to suggest wave/particle duality is an illusion (Julian Barbour's quantum state theory of the universe for instance.)

Asserting God as a solution to a problem is called the argument from incredulity. The trouble with it is that answer does not follow from the problem to be solved. Ancient people couldn't explain life so God must have created it. I don't think I've done that here. The conclusion that there must be a "Prime Observer" follows directly from the premises. It is not something I just threw in to fill some "gap". In fact as I look back on it I don't see how I could come to any other reasonable conclusion"




Asserting God as a solution to a problem is called the argument from incredulity. The trouble with it is that answer does not follow from the problem to be solved. Ancient people couldn't explain life so God must have created it. I don't think I've done that here. The conclusion that there must be a "Prime Observer" follows directly from the premises. It is not something I just threw in to fill some "gap". In fact as I look back on it I don't see how I could come to any other reasonable conclusion"


Addressing Alumno deVerum: You mean that there is only one conclusion from your various considerations, that there is a God conceived as minimally a prime observer.

And that prime observer, God, is observing everything in his observatorium which we call a mind.

This conclusion does not seem to be different from what I know to have been speculated on by philosophers called idealists, proponents of idealism, meaning in a theistic context everything is in the mind of God.

In which case where do atheists put themselves? Logically as conceptual beings in the prime observer that is God Who is entertaining Himself in His mind to be beings capable of thinking about positing that there is no God -- thus they the atheists are parts and parcels of God, His conceptual entities inside His observatorium or mind.

Hence, Alumno deVerum, you have given the last laugh to the theists which does not appear to be a good laugh on the atheists; because theists of the traditional schools of theism like Christians, Muslims, and Judaists – and these are the serious, i.e., emotionally impassioned partisans vis-a-vis emotionally impassioned atheists, maintain that humans are not parts and parcels in the mind of God, but distinct from their God.


ergry

[ergry]

I wonder if Alumno deVerum is writing from passion or from reason; most probably being human he is writing from passion and using reason to attempt an explanation for a passion, namely, the belief in God.


The Non-creator God

One of the most common questions asked of Deists who doubt divine intervention is how can a God incapable of interferring in the world "create" that same world? The short answer is God doesn't "create" the world.

This does not mean the world is not contingent on God. I have written before why I think a Deistic God probably exists so I won't go over it again here but I will elaborate a little on why I think it unnecessary to think of God as an active "creator".

I call myself a "natural idealist" because I think the world is fundamentally concept. This appears to be congruent with the way quantum mechanics describes the "physical" world. Albert Einstein demonstrated that matter is just a form of energy. Then Erwin Schrodinger showed energy is manifested as a wave. Finally Max Born proved that waves are just how mathematics distributes probabilities.

If the universe is nothing more than probability waves manifested as space/time then it could "precipitate" naturally out of what I call the "Prime Observer". Utilizing a technique first developed by the French mathematician Jean Baptiste Fourier complex ideas may be produced by adding together many different frequency waves making one wave with a distinctive shape. If all possible waveforms, positive and negative, are added together the resulting “shape” would be a single flat line (not no line).

As the source of all being the Prime Observer then could be thought of as a perfectly smooth self-referential concept analogous to a sphere (remember this is just a device to help us think about something far beyond our experiance). God, then, would be the simplest possible concept but contain within It all the complexities that can ever be.

Imagine a perfect sphere. "Ripples" could emerge soley by chance on the surface of such an object simply because it is possible for them to. As long as they don't occur simultaneously and cancel out such probability waves may arise unprompted. If the crest of a wave equals its trough then there is no net difference in the overall geometry of that sphere. That is there is no change in it as a whole.

Applying this to the world we see around us we could say any combination of waveforms that don't cancel out could spontaneously emerge (as long as they are balanced) simply because that which we call "God" is aware of them. Things happen because they can happen and they can happen because those things don't result in contradiction. Thus since all possibilities are already incorporated within It God does not need to "cause" anything. As long as the chance of them occurring does not equal zero they will happen all by themselves. This has the potential of solving several problems among them:

1- It shows how God can be the source of all being and remain immutable.

2- It could explain why our universe is predominately matter by saying we could have a sister universe that is mostly anti-matter (if the world is contingent on God then God must be able to explain the physical properties of the world).

3- Why the world seems designed for life by holding all possible worlds may emerge including those that are barren and we just happen to be in one of the few that has physical laws that allow the formation of planets that can support life. Kurt Godel pointed out the philosophical difficulties of mathematical descriptions of the world based on axioms. Why these rules? Why not others? May be those questions can simply be avoided if all non-contradictory axiomatic models, manifested as universes, are possible.

4- If Deism is true why would God would abandon It's creation? The world was not "created" therefore it was not "abandoned". You can't blame the evils in the world on God.

5- If God exists then why does It exist? God exists in order to avoid the "paradox of nothingness" and holds Itself in existence because It is self referential thus allowing God to say "I AM" the same foundation of the self we all share.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If the world is basically concept it must be observed and, therefore, God must exist but that is not the same as saying the universe must be "created". If that is true then there is no divine purpose to the world. It exists simply because it can. However that does not mean our lives are meaningless. Only that we are responsible for creating that meaning for ourselves.

For a more complete explanation of this form of Deism please check this link:

http://dynamicdeism.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1802


.


If the world is basically concept it must be observed and, therefore, God must exist but that is not the same as saying the universe must be "created". If that is true then there is no divine purpose to the world. It exists simply because it can. However that does not mean our lives are meaningless. Only that we are responsible for creating that meaning for ourselves.

Before anything else, we exist in any way existence can be understood, even as just concept in some mind; and that mind exists.

If I am not mistaken, it is in Buddhism that nothing exists yet Buddhists talk about nothing unceasingly, starting with their own existence; but you have to be a Buddhist to talk about nothing exists and still you are talking about nothing -- which is what sharp people have pointed out to be the illogic of Buddhism, because they insist on the one hand that nothing exists, and on the other hand they talk and write endlessly to explain why they even bother to busy themselves with nothing.

You must forgive these gentlemen, because they don't know about the principle of parsimony, meaning, don't complicate things unnecessarily, just admit what is obvious and simple; so just admit that things or something at the minimum exists and start from there.

Otherwise you are just like the smartaleck kid who submitted a drawing entitled cows eating grass, but the drawing paper was all blank. The teacher asked him: "Where's the grass?" "All eated up by the cows," he answered. "And where are the cows?" "They all left after finishing the grass," the kid explained.


Coming back to God as the Prime Observer:


If the world is basically concept it must be observed and, therefore, God must exist but that is not the same as saying the universe must be "created". If that is true then there is no divine purpose to the world. It exists simply because it can. However that does not mean our lives are meaningless. Only that we are responsible for creating that meaning for ourselves.

"If the world is basically concept it must be observed and, therefore, God must exist but that is not the same as saying the universe must be "created".

So the world is a concept which must postulate a concept generator, which then is the observer of the world concept, which observer is called by Alumno deVerum the Prime Observer or God, and everything in the world including in particular humans are concepts in God's mind.

Is the world then "created" by God? Alumno deVerum says it does not follow: "God must exist but that is not the same as saying the universe must be "created".

I can agree to that in the sense that the world being a concept entails a conceiver or concept generator, but a concept generator does not entail the actual existence of a concept -- at most only the possibility of its conceptual existence.


If that is true then there is no divine purpose to the world. It exists simply because it can. However that does not mean our lives are meaningless. Only that we are responsible for creating that meaning for ourselves.

Addressing Alumno deVerum: Do you mean that since God is a concept observer or effectively an concept generator, He has got to generate a concept in order to observe the concept which is the world; and therefore inasmuch as He cannot otherwise than generate the concept, there is no purpose to the world: it exists because it can.

God is Himself the self-coerced generator of the world, and any agent coerced cannot be said to act for a purpose to be achieved by the effect of his agency. I think I can also accept that.

But here is what I can't see any rationally acceptable transition, namely, according to Alumno deVerum:


However that does not mean our lives are meaningless. Only that we are responsible for creating that meaning for ourselves.

Responsible? Responsible to whom? To God Who is an agent of necessity Himself?


Do we see the passion in Alumno deVerum attempting to work out a reason for the meaning of human existence, which is the mentality of theists, as opposed to atheists.


On the other hand, theists do have a purpose, but atheists don't have any, just the same they are emotionally agitated -- to what end or against what targets?


If you ask me, an extra terrestrial being: God is himself seeking a meaning, He is a developing or if you will an evolving God; theists are participating in that process of God's self-development or self-evolution; now, atheists are agitated against the God Which to them does not exist, and also against theists to all appearances.

What do I recommend to atheists? Resolve your agitation and work out a meaning to existence and life, then consult the marketing experts if you are interested in gaining adherents to your advocacy.


ergry

[Allo Allo]

Coming back to God as the Prime Observer:

I can agree to that in the sense that the world being a concept entails a conceiver or concept generator, but a concept generator does not entail the actual existence of a concept -- at most only the possibility of its conceptual existence.
If that is true then there is no divine purpose to the world. It exists simply because it can. However that does not mean our lives are meaningless. Only that we are responsible for creating that meaning for ourselves.Addressing Alumno deVerum: Do you mean that since God is a concept observer or effectively an concept generator, He has got to generate a concept in order to observe the concept which is the world; and therefore inasmuch as He cannot otherwise than generate the concept, there is no purpose to the world: it exists because it can.

God is Himself the self-coerced generator of the world, and any agent coerced cannot be said to act for a purpose to be achieved by the effect of his agency. I think I can also accept that.

But here is what I can't see any rationally acceptable transition, namely, according to Alumno deVerum:
However that does not mean our lives are meaningless. Only that we are responsible for creating that meaning for ourselves.Responsible? Responsible to whom? To God Who is an agent of necessity Himself?
............
If you ask me, an extra terrestrial being: God is himself seeking a meaning, He is a developing or if you will an evolving God; theists are participating in that process of God's self-development or self-evolution; now, atheists are agitated against the God Which to them does not exist, and also against theists to all appearances.

What do I recommend to atheists? Resolve your agitation and work out a meaning to existence and life, then consult the marketing experts if you are interested in gaining adherents to your advocacy.
ergry

I point out again that there is no meaning to an atheist for existence – or life. So there is nothing to work out – for an athiest.

If you think of “God”, not as a “Prime Observer” observing concept, but as the “whole of everything” simply “being” (because it can), you get rid of the problem of “responsibility” to anything. If “the whole of everything” is evolving, are you suggesting that finding meaning to existence and life by Homo Sapiens is part of the evolution of “the whole of everything”? Do you think “the whole of everything” could carry on “being” without us? Is “observing” necessary to “being”?

M
:knitter:

[ergry]

[Pre-disclaimer: I am an extra-terrestrial being, my purpose here is just to observe how earthlings feel, think, and behave; as the ancients among earthlings themselves have multi-millennia back already arrived at: observation of life, man, nature, the universe is the quintessential and the number one enjoyment and thrill for intelligent earthlings, and it is called contemplation. That, my friends here, is also my engrossment in this forum.]


----------------------


.


I point out again that there is no meaning to an atheist for existence – or life. So there is nothing to work out – for an athiest.

If you think of “God”, not as a “Prime Observer” observing concept, but as the “whole of everything” simply “being” (because it can), you get rid of the problem of “responsibility” to anything. If “the whole of everything” is evolving, are you suggesting that finding meaning to existence and life by Homo Sapiens is part of the evolution of “the whole of everything”? Do you think “the whole of everything” could carry on “being” without us? Is “observing” necessary to “being”?

M
:knitter:



.


I point out again that there is no meaning to an atheist for existence – or life. So there is nothing to work out – for an athiest.

If I may, can we agree that you for being and professing yourself to be an atheist are presently existing and operating and living and acting in this forum, and outside this forum are carrying on the everyday acts of a living earthling to stay alive and well and to endure or last as long as you can continue animate existence, as opposed to inanimate existence like the kind exhibited in stones.

Can we agree that in your everyday life as described above you are certainly working out something, first and foremost to stay alive.

So, can we agree that you really don't mean for being an atheist that you are not working out anything, nothing absolutely, while you live and breathe and function? At least I can observe that you are working out how to understand whatever you read here and working out the drafting of a reaction message for publication in this here forum. Can you observe that from and by and through and about yourself?


.


If you think of “God”, not as a “Prime Observer” observing concept, but as the “whole of everything” simply “being” (because it can), you get rid of the problem of “responsibility” to anything. If “the whole of everything” is evolving, are you suggesting that finding meaning to existence and life by Homo Sapiens is part of the evolution of “the whole of everything”? Do you think “the whole of everything” could carry on “being” without us? Is “observing” necessary to “being”?


If you think of “God”, not as a “Prime Observer” observing concept, but as the “whole of everything” simply “being” (because it can), you get rid of the problem of “responsibility” to anything.

I can agree, as an extra-terrestrial being (ET), that God as so understood to be everything simply existing because it can is not responsible for anything and to anything.

I don't have that problem of God having any responsibility or not; but I am just curious why intelligent earthlings have responsibilities, and that is also the concern of Alumno deVerum.


.

If “the whole of everything” is evolving, are you suggesting that finding meaning to existence and life by Homo Sapiens is part of the evolution of “the whole of everything”? Do you think “the whole of everything” could carry on “being” without us? Is “observing” necessary to “being”?

Please don't get me wrong; I am an ET here to contemplate the feeling, thinking, and functioning of humans, in particular the intelligent ones, i.e., who do employ their intelligence.

It is Alumno deVerum who is concerned to draw a transition from his expatiation about God as concept generator and the world and man as concepts in God's mind, the transition namely that


However that does not mean our lives are meaningless. Only that we are responsible for creating that meaning for ourselves.
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=11362&postcount=2

I myself don't see how that transition to the need to make man's existence meaningful to himself, how that transition namely can follow from his expatiation about God's existence as expounded by himself.

What I can observe is that Alumno deVerum is aware of the fact that man is cognizant of his actually living a meaningful existence, and he wants people who don't see any meaning to life or choose to not live or to profess that they don't want to concur with the rest of men that life is meaningfully being lived and is worthy of living, as the saying goes: "Get a life, Have a life," he is concerned to exert his own voice to tell these deniers of meaning to life, to create a meaning for themselves.

What about myself, an ET? As I said in my preceding message:


If you ask me, an extra terrestrial being: God is himself seeking a meaning, He is a developing or if you will an evolving God; theists are participating in that process of God's self-development or self-evolution; now, atheists are agitated against the God Which to them does not exist, and also against theists to all appearances.

What do I recommend to atheists? Resolve your agitation and work out a meaning to existence and life, then consult the marketing experts if you are interested in gaining adherents to your advocacy.

You don't agree with me, that is your privilege; and I can observe that you find meaning with not agreeing with the rest of men that they are pursuing a meaningful life, and with me for my kind of a suggestion how man's living of and pursuit of meaning in life can be embedded in Alumno deVerum's concept and nature of God.

At least, I observe that you find meaning in challenging the fact and the urge of mankind (excepting of course atheists who feel otherwise) to live a meaningful life and to seek more meanings to life


ergry

[Allo Allo]

“If you ask me, an extra terrestrial being: God is himself seeking a meaning, He is a developing or if you will an evolving God; theists are participating in that process of God's self-development or self-evolution;” So would it be beneficial to this “developing God” that atheists work out a meaning for life??? And “ that atheists being agitated against the God Which to them does not exist, and also against theists to all appearances.” Is this attitude holding this evolving God back?

You say “What do I recommend to atheists? Resolve your agitation and work out a meaning to existence and life, then consult the marketing experts if you are interested in gaining adherents to your advocacy.”
Well it seems to me, that science itself, as currently taught in education will gain adherents for atheists – so no marketing experts will be needed. This would change again if something as yet undiscovered overturned the current teaching of science making atheism an illogical belief. (Which is not impossible.) Science is a self-correcting method of observation. It would then educate people in another way. It is far more exciting following the discoveries of science than adhering to religious dogma and creeds that do not satisfy an intelligent person, except in their most abstract form.


Again – whatever science discovered that might make a difference to Atheists, it would not change any fundamentalist religion because they lack the “self correcting” aspect of scientific thought.

What planet are you from?


M
:knitter:

[ergry]

What planet are you from?

That is privileged information (just one of few privileges I allow myself on this earthly sojourn); but I invite you to join me in the contemplation of earthlings: their feelings and thoughts and actions.


ergry

[Jocky]

What planet are you from?

That is privileged information (just one of few privileges I allow myself on this earthly sojourn); but I invite you to join me in the contemplation of earthlings: their feelings and thoughts and actions.

ergry

Don't feed the troll, people. Move along. Nothing to see here.

In fact, let's feed on the troll. Recipe time!

I acknowledge the source (http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/Alien_recipes.html) of this appropriate culinary delight:

DEEP FRIED ALIEN

Ingredients: 1 Full sized adult blue alien, trussed and prepared, or else 2 adolescent aliens, similarly trussed
Serves 6.

COOKING
Step One: Get your alien, a very large cooking pot and some cooking oil. You can use vegetable oil, but it's better if you use peanut oil. However peanut oil is very expensive and you are going to need several gallons of it.
Step Two: Prepare the Alien. It needs to be defrosted and washed and make sure there are no pop up tender timer devices or anything left inside. You will also need to truss the Alien, meaning you need to secure the legs and arms to the body.
Step Three: To determine the perfect amount of oil you are going to be using, place the alien or aliens in the pot and add water until the alien is completely covered plus an inch or two. With the alien and the water there should still be several inches of room between the oil and the top of the pot.
If it's a close call, then you need either a bigger pot or a smaller alien. Remove the alien and measure the water. This is the amount of oil you will need.
Step Four: Dry and season the alien. Various recipes will call for seasoning rubs or injection mixtures.
Step Five: Make sure that your frying pot is completely dry. Water left behind can cause some serious problems once you add the oil and start heating it up.
Step Six: Add the oil to the pot and bring it to a temperature of about 400 degrees. You should really get a good thermometer so you can get the temperatures right.
Step Seven: This is where it gets tricky. The alien needs to be room temperature and dry. Turn off the burner when you put the alien in. You are going to lower the alien into the pot of very hot oil. The oil is going to splatter. You need some very good cooking gloves and a way to put the alien in the oil while you are a safe distance. This is the reason why it's really not that good of an idea to do it on your stovetop. I have heard of people using a wire basket on the alien and a wooden board to do this. A bit of inventing and I'm sure you'll find a way. Anyway, slowly lower the alien into the oil. A good method here is dunking. When you lower the alien into the oil it will boil up.
Step Eight: Once the alien is safely resting in the oil, turn the burner back on to get to a temperature of 350 degrees. At this point you can go take a breather. But don't wander too far because that alien will be done soon. A deep fried alien cooks at a rate of about 3 to 3 1/2 minutes per pound. A ten pound alien should take 30-35 minutes. An instant read thermometer can help you test for doneness, but of course you will need to lift the alien out to test it.
Step Nine: Remove the alien from the oil when it's done. Do this slowly and after you have turned off the burner. Let the alien drain a little bit and you're set to go.
Step Ten: Carve and enjoy. If you have never had an alien cooked this way then you have not finished your life requirements. Do this and you may never put an alien in the oven or on the barbecue again. Despite what you might think this alien is not oily or greasy. It's crisp, juicy and delicious. Of course I know that if you put your mind to it you can come up with a good cooker arrangement. But there are a couple of things this cooker needs: a good stock pot, a controllable heat source and a way to safely get the alien in the oil and out again.

SERVING
Serve with either a salad, or in cold weather, steamed vegetables

ACCOMPANY WITH: A crisp White wine, or a Sangria

[Allo Allo]

Ahhh heck! I enjoyed it! Ok - no feeding the troll - but please take precautions (http://www.sonic.net/~ric/go/eat/cookets.htm)before you try your recipe!

ALIEN-EATING SURVIVAL TIPS

Like many other risky endeavours, catching and preparing and cooking and eating ET aliens should be approached carefully and methodically. I mean, you wouldn't fly off in your ultralight or chopper or MIG-25 or space shuttle unless you'd checked the oil and fuel levels first, right? Not unless you were planning a one-way trip, anyway.
So here's a checklist of precautions you should take before you try to chow-down on something. These rules are designed for alien cuisines but can just as well be applied to terrestrial animals, vegetables and minerals that you may want to include in your diet.

I. Make sure your intended repast is dead, disarmed, immobilized and uncommunicative. Inflict whatever trauma is necessary to achieve this, including but not limited to:
knife incision, icepick penetration, blowtorch application, poisoning, electrocution, blows with blunt objects, irradiation, mechanized grinding and/or blending, phasor / deathray blasting, extended exposure to interstellar vacuum, etc.

II. Make sure your intended repast is contained by whatever means is necessary and available, including but not limited to:
sealed container, force-field, monomolecular netting, space / time warp, mental shields, epoxy embedding, magnetic bottle, casting wards and/or runes, paralysis rays, etc.

III. Make sure your intended repast has been detoxified and purified, by any means, including but not limited to:
chemical, radiological, electrical, mechanical, mental, moral, spiritual, temporal, extra-dimensional, experimental, etc.

IV. Make sure your intended repast, when cooked, will not become toxic (physically or mentally or morally), aggressive, passive-aggressive, vastly inflated or shrunken (with the possibility of changing size or shape after being eaten), quiescent (with the possibility of revivifying after being eaten), or otherwise inimical to your well-being and survival.

V. Make sure your intended repast is not protected by legal, moral, religious, demonic, or extradimentional codes or rules which, if enforced, could be detrimental to your well-being and survival. Or at least make sure that nobody / nothing discovers that you have violated such codes. You hope.

VI. Don't be a pig. Eat slowly, politely, decorously. Share your food with others. Don't play with your food. Hope that your food doesn't play with you. Clean up after yourself. A prayer before eating probably couldn't hurt, either.

Legal notice: The preceeding checklist may not cover all possible circumstances. The author is not responsibile for any actions taken or not taken by others who read the checklist. Read at your own risk and don't file any lawsuits, if you know what's good for you. But if you knew what was good for you, you wouldn't be trying this stuff, would you?
M
:knitter:

[Jocky]

ALIEN-EATING SURVIVAL TIPS

;D ;D

Thanks for the good advice!

[Alumno deVerum]

All I mean by this post is that considering the evidence available to me a form of Atheistic (that is no-interventionist) Deism is the most reasonable conclusion.

Personally I would prefer a materialistic model over this one because anything that even hints at the prospects of some sort of afterlife bothers me. I am a paramedic by profession and skydive and rock climb for fun. Not the kind of personality that looks forward to sitting on a cloud twiddling my thumbs forever. As the Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson once said, "When it comes to eternity the first billion billion years is just the beginning." Seriously who would want that?

But to me believing in materialism just because I want to is just as bad as a Theist believing in heaven because they want to. Wishful thinking is wishful thinking.

No the only reason I hold the opinions I do is because I am persuaded that there are correct.

[Alumno deVerum]

It sounds like some of you getting Theism and Deism mixed up.

Theism is a belief in God based on revelation. This entails divine intervention (miracles) because even if all God does is implant a thought in your head It has to interrupt the "physical" processes in your brain to do it.

A-Theism then is a disbelief in such a God.

Deism is a belief in God based on reason not revelation. However many Deist hold Theistic beliefs because even if all they think God did was "create" the world that too entails a miracle and purpose to the creation. I call those who hold these opinions Theistic Deists.

But a person can also be an Atheistic Deist if they come to the opinion that a type of "God" probably exists through reason but that "God" did not purposefully create the world. In this view the world is merely an epiphenomenon or unintentional by-product of that "God" (what I call the "Prime Observer"). In that case there is no purpose at all except that which we create for ourselves. Pascal's wager is irrelevant here because there is no advantage to believing in "God" in this case.

And finally those that do not believe in any God, Theistic or Deistic, I call Materialistic Atheists.

[bobdezon]

Why materialistic?

[Alumno deVerum]

Why materialistic?

Because materialism, as opposed to idealism, says that the world has an objective existence and doesn't need to be observed. Only trouble with it is to know if it was true you would have observe it not being observed! Who said Atheism wasn't faith based? 8)

[bobdezon]

Is this a philisophical concept? because that went right over my working class head :sad:

I always thought the world was a subjective experience. Like you get from it what you will/choose/observe/create.

Plus, Im no "philadelphia lawyer" or anything, but if you observe something not being observed, doesnt that infact make it observed and negate your attempt?

[Mongrel]

Is this a philisophical concept? because that went right over my working class head :sad:

I always thought the world was a subjective experience. Like you get from it what you will/choose/observe/create.

Plus, Im no "philadelphia lawyer" or anything, but if you observe something not being observed, doesnt that infact make it observed and negate your attempt?

It's a mangled philosophical content, Wiki has a better definition of it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism). As a quick example of the point Light was moving at 299,792,458 metres per second well before life started (not being observed) it's only in the last few centuries that we've been able to measure it with suitable accuracy and learn that it's one of the Universal Constants.

[Alumno deVerum]

That doesn't show the world wasn't being observed. It only suggests that it wasn't being observed by an observer in the world. Nor does it show the world is/was being observed by any transcendant "God". All it shows is that materialism can not be proved any more than idealism.

So the demand by Atheists for absolute proof of God is hypocritical. The only legitimate basis for an opinion either way then is based on the preponderance of the evidence available to you. If that evidence supports Atheism then be an Atheist. If it supports Theism then be a Theist. Or if, like me, you think it supports Deism then be a Deist.

Thats hardly a mangled concept but it was a nice try anyway.

P.S. There is also the anthropic principle as well.

[Alumno deVerum]

So in effect all you've done is assume materialism in order to prove materialism.

[Mongrel]

As a sceptic I'll say "Give me enough evidence about gods and I'll admit they're there". Equally as an Atheist I'm happy to say "Show me ANY proof and I'll listen to you. I may not bow down and worship but I'll listen"

Handily for me the proof for any of the gods\pantheons exists or did exist is approaching zero so fast that, if you took time away from building your strawmen, it'll make your head spin. So what do you offer as evidence for god? Preferably without the word salad style postings you've offered previously

[Alumno deVerum]

As a sceptic I'll say "Give me enough evidence about gods and I'll admit they're there". Equally as an Atheist I'm happy to say "Show me ANY proof and I'll listen to you. I may not bow down and worship but I'll listen"

Handily for me the proof for any of the gods\pantheons exists or did exist is approaching zero so fast that, if you took time away from building your strawmen, it'll make your head spin. So what do you offer as evidence for god? Preferably without the word salad style postings you've offered previously

I'm not building a strawman and you know it. The fact is you just ran into an argument you can't refute and you can't handle it so your trying to deflect it by making unfounded accusations. If you want the whole argument then here it is: http://www.positivedeism.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2699

Why don't you actually read it this time and address the criticsms of materialism I point out in it instead of trying to dodge them by making personal attacks. Because if thats all you have you don't have much.

Oh yea explain to me again how you can observe something not being observed I need a good laugh.

[Mongrel]

I'm not building a strawman and you know it. The fact is you just ran into an argument you can't refute and you can't handle it so your trying to deflect it by making unfounded accusations. If you want the whole argument then here it is: http://www.positivedeism.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2699

Why don't you actually read it this time and address the criticsms of materialism I point out in it instead of trying to dodge them by making personal attacks. Because if thats all you have you don't have much.

Oh yea explain to me again how you can observe something not being observed I need a good laugh.

1) You gave the Philosophical interpretation of materialism which has little to so with science. Science prefers getting it's hands dirty rather than self indulgent 'what ifs'. Your version of materialism is just a rather badly reworded version of "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it does it still make a sound?". Strawman =1

2) So the demand by Atheists for absolute proof of God is hypocritical.

The thing about atheism is it's a refutation of the concept of gods (any of them), it'd be like atheists asking for proof of the existence of Unicorns and pixies. Strawman =2

3) Could you cut and paste the relevant "winning arguments"::) from that site, I don't wish to sign up to another forum.

4) You have still to post ANYTHING even closely resembling a shred of evidence regarding the Big Sky Daddy, got anything?

[Alumno deVerum]

1) You gave the Philosophical interpretation of materialism which has little to so with science. Science prefers getting it's hands dirty rather than self indulgent 'what ifs'. Your version of materialism is just a rather badly reworded version of "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it does it still make a sound?". Strawman =1

2) So the demand by Atheists for absolute proof of God is hypocritical.

The thing about atheism is it's a refutation of the concept of gods (any of them), it'd be like atheists asking for proof of the existence of Unicorns and pixies. Strawman =2

3) Could you cut and paste the relevant "winning arguments"::) from that site, I don't wish to sign up to another forum.

4) You have still to post ANYTHING even closely resembling a shred of evidence regarding the Big Sky Daddy, got anything?

Here is a link to another forum with the same essay. You do not have to join to read it. I will not "cut and paste" it because somethings just can not be reduced to a sound bite so you will have to read the whole thing in order to make a valid critique. If you do not have the intellectual discipline to do that its not my fault.

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=5342&sid=9d9029f9bb700296f5731fe70032e1c3

Personally I doubt you will read it because I don't think you have read the short version I have already provided. None of what you wrote above are positions I hold and if you really had read it you would have known that. So I have no choice but to conclude you just have no idea what you are talking about.

[Alumno deVerum]

If that one doesn't work try this one:

http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/viewtopic.php?t=1546&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

P.S. Yes I know I misspelled "copyright" I'm a paramedic and I wrote that after working a full shift. I was tired.

[Alumno deVerum]

Here is a link to another forum with the same essay. You do not have to join to read it. I will not "cut and paste" it because somethings just can not be reduced to a sound bite so you will have to read the whole thing in order to make a valid critique. If you do not have the intellectual discipline to do that its not my fault.

http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/viewtopic.php?t=1546&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Personally I doubt you will read it because I don't think you have read the short version I have already provided. None of what you wrote above are positions I hold and if you really had read it you would have known that. So I have no choice but to conclude you just have no idea what you are talking about.

P.S. I know I misspelled "copyright". I'm a paramedic and I wrote that after working a full shift. I was tired.

Sorry for the multiple posts but the ten minute time limit on editing is not conducive to this type of argumentation which requires reflection. I quoted my self above for continuity and to again supply the link I referred to before.

The main thing I want to add is in regards to your implication that I do not hold to materialism because it can not be proved. That is not true. I am an Atheistic Deist but I but I do not think Deism can be proved either. I hold the opinions I do based on the preponderance of the evidence presented to me.

The reasons I do not hold to materialism are elaborated on in the essay the link goes to as are the reasons I am a Deist. It is for this reason I refuse to "cut and paste" the argument It would be too easy for someone to take things out of context and twist them around if I did that. Besides if someone were to do that they wouldn't really be addressing the argument anyway.

The only reason I mentioned that materialism can not be proved is to show that the Atheists demand for absolute proof of God in any form is hypocritical because it is (I'm still waiting for your explanation of how you can observe something not being observed by the way).

One more thing. I was an Atheist in the middle of the Bible belt when Christian groups all over the United States were trying to shove creationism down our throats. I do not need some Johnny come lately to tell me what Atheism is. When you get a brick with pages from the Bible tied to it thrown through your window then I will listen to what you have to say about that.

P.S. If you don't remember what an Atheistic Deist is here is a definition:

It sounds like some of you getting Theism and Deism mixed up.

Theism is a belief in God based on revelation. This entails divine intervention (miracles) because even if all God does is implant a thought in your head It has to interrupt the "physical" processes in your brain to do it.

A-Theism then is a disbelief in such a God.

Deism is a belief in God based on reason not revelation. However many Deist hold Theistic beliefs because even if all they think God did was "create" the world that too entails a miracle and purpose to the creation. I call those who hold these opinions Theistic Deists.

But a person can also be an Atheistic Deist if they come to the opinion that a type of "God" probably exists through reason but that "God" did not purposefully create the world. In this view the world is merely an epiphenomenon or unintentional by-product of that "God" (what I call the "Prime Observer"). In that case there is no purpose at all except that which we create for ourselves. Pascal's wager is irrelevant here because there is no advantage to believing in "God" in this case.

And finally those that do not believe in any God, Theistic or Deistic, I call Materialistic Atheists.

In other words I do not believe in a "sky daddy" so stop twisting my words around.

[Mongrel]

Finally able to answer, been busy at work...


The main thing I want to add is in regards to your implication that I do not hold to materialism because it can not be proved. That is not true. I am an Atheistic Deist but I but I do not think Deism can be proved either. I hold the opinions I do based on the preponderance of the evidence presented to me.
How can you hold two mutually incompatible positions?
Atheist - Without belief in god\s
Deist - A belief in god\s.
You have still to show Evidence either, philosophical ramblings doesn't count.


The reasons I do not hold to materialism are elaborated on in the essay the link goes to as are the reasons I am a Deist.
It starts with the assumption that Jesus existed (some discussion here (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1120)) and merely 'swooned' on the cross, thus his resurrection. (You may want to look at "Crucifixion Asphyxiation" though)

It is for this reason I refuse to "cut and paste" the argument It would be too easy for someone to take things out of context and twist them around if I did that. Besides if someone were to do that they wouldn't really be addressing the argument anyway.
It was a request to put the argument up here, not snippets or on a registration only Xian forum, no need to get arsy. After trying to read it though, don't bother - it's unstructured, rambling and relies on obfuscation (probably unintentional), arguments from incredulity and arguments from ignorance


The only reason I mentioned that materialism can not be proved[quote] Materialism as in that philosophy thing? Philosophy doesn't count for much in the real world. Some of them even think that nothing exists that they don't create in their heads, and whilst, philosophically, it can't be disproved in the real world a simple pointy stick does what days of navel gazing can't.

[quote] is to show that the Atheists demand for absolute proof of God in any form is hypocritical
Why would an atheist demand 'absolute proof' of a being\s that he refutes the existence of? The only time that I'll ask for evidence (proof being a mathematical thing) is when some idiot is trying to tell me that god/s exist, my second question is normally " Why is the Xian god the correct one? There are plenty of others to choose from and they all have the same level of evidence!"

because it is (I'm still waiting for your explanation of how you can observe something not being observed by the way).Because it's philosophical bollix that means nothing in the real world. Scientists start with a set of ground rules about what they can and can't do, what they can and can't measure - they then see what we can observe within those rules, make notes and see if they can be refined along the way

One more thing. I was an Atheist in the middle of the Bible belt when Christian groups all over the United States were trying to shove creationism down our throats. I do not need some Johnny come lately to tell me what Atheism is. When you get a brick with pages from the Bible tied to it thrown through your window then I will listen to what you have to say about that.
So you carried your persecution complex over? I'm sorry that you live in the most intolerant and bigoted first world countries and I'm sorry that the 'peace loving' fundamentalist idiots think violence is a natural answer to anything but does your persecution automatically make your argument right? All it means is that you've been persecuted for your beliefs and you have an argument - it's not an "I Win!" button.


P.S. If you don't remember what an Atheistic Deist is here is a definition:
Mutually incompatible - see above.



In other words I do not believe in a "sky daddy" so stop twisting my words around.
Odd then that you use the same arguments and fallacies as the bleevers then...

[Alumno deVerum]

Man you sure are good at ignoring answers you don't like and twisting peoples words around. Ever think about going into politics?

For instance I clearly said that I don't know if Jesus existed or not. All I said was that if he did the events described in the Bible could be explained without resorting to divine intervention.

I also clearly explained (more than once) the difference between Theism and Deism. You either are incapable of understanding that or you are deliberately misrepresenting it because you can't parrot an answer to that.

Personally I suspect it may be a little bit of both. I've gone back and read some of your posts elsewhere on this forum. Have you ever read a book? Or do you just google things?

Saying the essay is "unstructured" is just a dodge to avoid reading something longer than a caption and to excuse your inability to defend materialism. I will ask you one more time to tell me how you can observe something not being observed.

Yet you still presume to comment on it! Please explain to me how you can know about something you youself admit you haven't read.

No I think my first impression of you was right. You just came across an argument you can't refute and you can't handle that. Please note I didn't say it couldn't be refuted only that you can't refute it.

The essay is still there for you to read though I doubt you ever will. You simply lack the intellectual discipline to do it. But if you do let me know. Until then I see no reason to waste any more time on someone who has no idea he's talking about.

B.T.W. I'm not a Christian but if you had read the essay you would have known that too.

[Mongrel]

Man you sure are good at ignoring answers you don't like and twisting peoples words around. Ever think about going into politics?
Where? Care to provide examples



I also clearly explained (more than once) the difference between Theism and Deism. You either are incapable of understanding that or you are deliberately misrepresenting it because you can't parrot an answer to that.
Whilst I may misinterpret the nuances between them both, at their heart, require a god figure\s. Trying to re-write the definition of atheist so you can call yourself an atheist deist is still nonsense



Personally I suspect it may be a little bit of both. I've gone back and read some of your posts elsewhere on this forum. Have you ever read a book? Or do you just google things?
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/Mongrel01/stuff%202/BR3.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/Mongrel01/stuff%202/BR2.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/Mongrel01/stuff%202/BR1.jpg
Well....I've read a few of these ::)

Saying the essay is "unstructured" is just a dodge to avoid reading something longer than a caption
No, I'm saying it's unstructured because it is and because the word 'turgid' is being abandoned by the wayside. I have read crap writing, lots of it, but I read it because some authors manage can manage to squeeze a few good ideas in there.

and to excuse your inability to defend materialism. I will ask you one more time to tell me how you can observe something not being observed.
You're the person who called science materialistic, not me and since that quote is obviously nonsense in the real world it's been rightfully discarded as such.


Yet you still presume to comment on it! Please explain to me how you can know about something you youself admit you haven't read.
I have been commenting on what you've posted here


No I think my first impression of you was right. You just came across an argument you can't refute and you can't handle that. Please note I didn't say it couldn't be refuted only that you can't refute it.
;D;D;D
Arrogance much?


The essay is still there for you to read though I doubt you ever will. You simply lack the intellectual discipline to do it. But if you do let me know. Until then I see no reason to waste any more time on someone who has no idea he's talking about.

Well, next time my insomnia kicks in I'll remember this thread O0

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Because materialism, as opposed to idealism, says that the world has an objective existence and doesn't need to be observed. Only trouble with it is to know if it was true you would have observe it not being observed! Who said Atheism wasn't faith based? 8)

Berkeley's Master Argument, as I live and breathe!
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/#2.2.1

Bring back the old fallacies, I say, before clear thinking ruins the game! :-)

[Alumno deVerum]

Well....I've read a few of these ::)

I would think very few.


Berkeley's Master Argument, as I live and breathe!
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/#2.2.1

Bring back the old fallacies, I say, before clear thinking ruins the game! :-)


That, as I said before, is not why I doubt materialism.

[Mongrel]

I would think very few.

If all you've got to post is Ad homs and insults then you're not worth my time.

[fruitfly]

I will ask you one more time to tell me how you can observe something not being observed.



Idealist philosopher walking down the street, contemplating his belief that reality consists exclusively of minds and their ideas. Deep in thought he steps off the pavement and is hit by a bus. Killed instantly by a mind independent object!

He didn't see it coming but there were witnesses.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

That, as I said before, is not why I doubt materialism.

Why then did you say:
" Because materialism, as opposed to idealism, says that the world has an objective existence and doesn't need to be observed. Only trouble with it is to know if it was true you would have observe it not being observed!"?

By the bye, you were naughty to say:
" The only reason I mentioned that materialism can not be proved is to show that the Atheists demand for absolute proof of God in any form is hypocritical because it is (I'm still waiting for your explanation of how you can observe something not being observed by the way)." [Italics mine]
Other questions aside, the only question you could have put here is not " How can you observe something not being observed?" but " How can you know about things you aren't observing?" The answer to the latter question you can probably work out if your telephone takes recorded messages. Or indeed if someone leaves a message for you with a friend.

[Alumno deVerum]

You're the person who called science materialistic, not me ...


Just one more thing before you go off and sulk. I never said science was materialistic. I do hold that Atheism tends to be materialistic but those are two different things. Are don't you know that either?


Why then did you say:
" Because materialism, as opposed to idealism, says that the world has an objective existence and doesn't need to be observed. Only trouble with it is to know if it was true you would have observe it not being observed!"?

By the bye, you were naughty to say:
" The only reason I mentioned that materialism can not be proved is to show that the Atheists demand for absolute proof of God in any form is hypocritical because it is (I'm still waiting for your explanation of how you can observe something not being observed by the way)." [Italics mine]
Other questions aside, the only question you could have put here is not " How can you observe something not being observed?" but " How can you know about things you aren't observing?" The answer to the latter question you can probably work out if your telephone takes recorded messages. Or indeed if someone leaves a message for you with a friend.


Idealist philosopher walking down the street, contemplating his belief that reality consists exclusively of minds and their ideas. Deep in thought he steps off the pavement and is hit by a bus. Killed instantly by a mind independent object!

He didn't see it coming but there were witnesses.


A recorded message is a form of observation. And witness are certainly observers too. So the question stands.

[fruitfly]

And witness are certainly observers too. So the question stands.

You asked, “How you can you observe something not being observed?”

There had to be at least one witness or no-one could have observed the philosopher not observing the bus.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

A recorded message is a form of observation.

And witness are certainly observers too. So the question stands.

A recorded message an observation? New one on me, I must say. I'd have called it evidence that something happened while I wasn't there to do any observing.

And witnesses are indeed observers. But the point is that they can be a source of evidence for things that others do not observe.

We know all sorts of things from objective evidence or from what others tell us. Now, if your notion of knowledge is inconsistent with that, you owe us a definition.

[Alumno deVerum]

A recorded message an observation? New one on me, I must say. I'd have called it evidence that something happened while I wasn't there to do any observing.

How do you know what it says if you don't listen to it?


You asked, “How you can you observe something not being observed?”

There had to be at least one witness or no-one could have observed the philosopher not observing the bus.

Thanks for making my point for me.


Logic says that for something to come from something else there must be something in common between them. In the syllogism it is the middle term that unites the major and minor premises and leads to a conclusion. A physical analogy might envision the energy passed from a cue ball to another ball, which is pocketed in a game of pool or in life it is the DNA passed from one generation to the next that permits evolution. So what does existence have in common with nothingness? Are they not complete opposites?

The answer is that they are both concepts. They are both ideas. That is what they have in common. It is the only thing they have in common. Nothingness is the only thing that may be thought of in completely negative terms except for the fact that it is a concept which is something. Nothingness is a concept, you’re thinking about it right now!

Whatever you can conceive, anything at all that exists, you may negate it without contradiction simply by putting a variation of the words “is not” in front of it. By applying these two words to the totality of existence then we should arrive at the logical definition of "absolute nothingness". But the concept of nothingness itself can still be contemplated. Which means that nothingness is not absolute. Which means nothingness is not nothing. In other words nothingness by itself is a contradiction!

David Hume once pointed out that no thing is demonstrable unless its contrary implies a contradiction. The concept of nothingness results in contradiction, a violation of the most basic rule of logic, Nothingness can not be an idea while also being devoid of properties since we could not have performed the operations in logic that allowed us to define it. Nor can nothingness be absolute and a conceivable concept as there would literally be nothing to think about. Absolute means just that. Absolute. No exceptions. Not even potential. But since it is conceptual we can say it obviously does have potential which demonstrates there is no such thing as a “state of nothingness” nor can there be. Just saying, “non-existence exists” is absurd.

The only way to avoid a paradox is to have a stable non-contradictory state of existence as opposed to non-existence. Further to avoid a non-sequiter that state must be a fundamental concept in nature as that is the only connection between being and nothingness and because of that link the one can come from the other. It may be a triviality but saying, “existence exists” has no inherent contradiction. Nothingness is unstable because it is self-contradictory, and that is why, I believe, there is something instead of nothing.

The world more and more does seem to be just numbers, values, and probabilities. A materialist may say that the number nine, for instance, must be expressed physically as stones or coins to exist but what is the physical? Albert Einstein proved that mass (matter) is just energy in particle form. Erwin Schrodinger discovered that matter could be manifested as a wave, which is energy in kinetic form. And Max Born showed that waves are just the probability distribution of a possible event (that is where the particle will actually appear when the wave collapses). That event is mathematical in nature and mathematics itself is nothing more than the rules that govern numbers which, apparently, are concepts that can only be seen by the mind.

Others say the numbers themselves are merely the products of material processes in the brain we impose on the world. But it seems to me this is just substituting one unsubstantiated statement for another. One can not assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material. The brain is made of tissue composed of cells built from molecules of atoms that are particles of matter which is energy...

My strongest objection against materialism, however, is that it is self-contradictory. Even though materialists claim to believe in reason they seem to advocate a form of mysticism when it comes to the problem of origins. For example they often say asking what happened before the Big Bang is misleading and meaningless because that implies time. Since time can not exist prior to the Big Bang, questions about an era of “pre-time” are non-sensical.

But if we now ask, “Well why was there a Big Bang?” The materialist answer is generally, “Because the laws of physics allow it.” If you then inquire as to where the laws of physics came from they will almost always respond that they synonymous, co-emerging with the universe. While sounding reasonable this explains very little. For the laws of physics to emerge they had to have had the potential to emerge. Without that potential they wouldn’t have emerged so didn’t the potential itself have to be pre-existent? We then beg another question, “Why is there potential?”

“Because of the laws of uncertainty”, the materialist asserts!
“But don’t you have to have something to be uncertain about?”
The question/response pattern that is beginning to emerge here seems to be that of infinite regress; axiom based on axiom based on axiom, which G&#246;del warned us about.

There is a story entitled the “Tower of Turtles” illustrating the problem with this type of reasoning. There are different versions of the tale but basically it goes like this:

A physicist is giving a public lecture about the structure of the universe as described by science when an elderly lady in the audience raises her hand.

“Yes?” he says rather annoyed at the interruption.
“Sir you have it all wrong. I know how the world really is!”
“Please enlighten us madam.”
“The universe sits on the back of an elephant which is riding on the back of a turtle.” She informs him.
“But what, pray tell, is the turtle riding on madam?” the physicist asks condescendingly.
“Ah! You can’t fool me sir! Its turtles all the way down!”

This amusing little story makes a serious point. If materialism is logical it must be able to explain itself- but it can’t.

I have little reason to believe materialism is true because all it offers is a circular argument, an unexplainable infinite regression, or a contradiction that suggests logic is an illusion built on a mystery. All the while ignoring the obvious question, “Why is there a 'tower of turtles' at all?”

But idealism (the view the world is basically nothing more than a concept) follows directly from the definitions of being and nothingness themselves and suffers from none of those problems. In fact because immaterial ideas in the form of numbers seem to be the building blocks of everything, including the atoms the brain is made of, idealism would seem a more logical belief. Even the seemingly chaotic can be described mathematically by fractal geometry. The connection between being and nothingness as mathematical concepts appears to me to be irrefutable.

Looking at the world as concept also seems to fit a general trend in the advancement of knowledge, that is generalizing and simplifying a field of knowledge to a succinct entity. In biology, the entire spectrum of life on earth has been reduced to one idea – DNA. Chemists have gone further by taking the very stuff DNA (as well as what everything else in the world is made of) and explaining it with the atom. Again, one simple theory that unites an entire science. Reducing the universe to a concept, based on its common relationship with nothingness as an idea, is the ultimate expression of this, it cannot be reduced any further.

All the evidence I have says that for a concept to exist there must be a mind to consider it. For example I can have 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but where is the number 9 apart from what I hold? Aside from the fact they are “physical” I can sense no other property they have in common. But changing the quantity doesn’t seem to affect the physical characteristics of either group so that particular integer itself is not intrinsic to either group. 9 has attributes I can understand. It is the square of 3. It is an odd number. And I can distinguish those traits from; say, the number 8 which is even and not a square. So even though it is not tangible it is a thing in its own right. However, I can not point to anything in nature and say, “This is the number 9 by itself.” I can only think about it. It is an idea that exists only in the mind.

Applying Occam’s Razor to my next question, “Who was observing it before I existed?”, the idea of a Prime Observer is, I believe, the simplest most logical answer. The doubt I have for that which I sense does not apply because this form of idealism is based on reason, not experience so I can be confident the world outside my room will not disappear when I close my door. A famous limerick makes the point:

There was a young man who said God
Must think it exceedingly odd,
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there’s no one about in the quad.
(Answer)
Dear Sir; your astonishment’s odd;
I’m always about in the quad,
And that’s why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by yours faithfully, God.
(Ronald Knox)

[fruitfly]

Ah, a leading question! I see.

Please give me a few seconds to digest that obviously off-the-cuff and spontaneously written essay, eh, I mean, response.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

How do you know what it says if you don't listen to it?


My amanuensis lets me know if there are any messages that need my attention.

But let's say I listen to it myself. That won't help you with the question whether the message is evidence of something that happened while I wasn't there to do any observing. Can we agree that the plain answer is yes? And, consequently, that we can know about things that we aren't observing?

[fruitfly]

You asked, “How you can you observe something not being observed?”

There had to be at least one witness or no-one could have observed the philosopher not observing the bus.



Thanks for making my point for me.


Actually, I don’t I did as the philosopher would have been killed whether there were any witnesses or not. I think in this case, though, I’ll have to move him to a forest and have him killed by an unobserved meteorite.

Also, if there was one prime witness, or “Prime Observer”, as you put it, it does not follow that he or she caused the accident. Just as it does not follow that the universe cannot exist without there being something to observe it and, ultimately, a Prime Observer.

So, can we observe something not being observed by anyone, or conceive of objects existing that are unperceived and unthought of? In other words, can we conceive of mind-independent objects? It is a pointless question as it has only one possible answer. We obviously cannot conceive of something without thinking about it. Does this mean all objects owe their existence to our perception of them? That they cannot be proved to have material existence in and of themselves?

Well, my idealist philosopher was killed by a material object (observed or unobserved) from the material world!

[Fiona]

Forgive me for intruding here but I am not a philosopher and although I am good at english I am finding it extremely difficult to follow Alumon DeVerum's posts. I do not think the fault is wholly mine since it should be possible to express thoughts in clear english and logical sequence. But I accept this may be written for a specialist audience.

Anyway I have some questions and if they are daft or represent a misunderstanding then be nice and explain please.


So what does existence have in common with nothingness? Are they not complete opposites?

The answer is that they are both concepts. They are both ideas. That is what they have in common. It is the only thing they have in common.and
By applying these two words to the totality of existence then we should arrive at the logical definition of "absolute nothingness". But the concept of nothingness itself can still be contemplated. Which means that nothingness is not absolute. Which means nothingness is not nothing. In other words nothingness by itself is a contradiction!I don't understand this. While you assert that both existence and non-existence are ideas, they seem to me to be part of the same idea: the one being the absence of the other. And I have no problem in thinking about the absence of things. Not even when the things are there. The thing they have in common is that they are different parts of the same thing, or so it seems to me.

Now you have said that


Nothingness is the only thing that may be thought of in completely negative terms except for the fact that it is a concept which is something. Nothingness is a concept, you’re thinking about it right now! You are correct, of course. I am thinking about it. This seems to me to prove beyond doubt that I can think about it. I can think about it as the absence of something. But the idea of nothingness is not nothingness itself: and the word nothingness is not nothingness itself: and this seems to cause you some problem. Why does it? Ideas of things and the things themselves are not usually identical. They are not the same type of beastie. I really cannot see anything of significance here, much less a contradiction that needs to be resolved.

[seren]

<<cross-posting with Fiona>> If you don't mind....I'm no philosopher but it occurs to me- if everything needs an Observer to exist, who is observing the Prime Observer? And who is Observing the Observer of the Prime Observer?

And don't tell me WE observe the Optimus Prime Observer because I bleedin well don't. As it is not an interventionist god, merely a remote viewer (as it were), how could I? And even if that IS your answer, how does that work? The two of us (god and the universe) suddenly popped into being by starting to observe each other. Or have we always existed, staring at each other resolutely in order to maintain our respective existences?

How do you apply your observation theory to the past? Let's say a man of a particular race lived 200 years ago. None of his contemporaries survive to confirm he lived, and there's no marked grave or written record of his life and death. He must have existed, because his descendants can stand before me today, yet I and nobody else can, or have, observed him.

Incidentally, I can't conceive of nothingness. Essentially it's not a concept I can truly understand. "Nothing" has a meaning, "nothingness" is a mystery to me. It's outside my realm of experience, outside what my tiny human mind has evolved to handle.

Like I said, I'm not a philosopher (or a scientist...I'm not good for anything really...:sad:), I just hope this makes some sense!

[fruitfly]

Actually, I don’t I did as the philosopher would have been killed whether there were any witnesses or not.

Oops, missed out the word "think", as in, "Actually, I don’t think I did..."

Sorry, but I imagine you have to be pretty precise in these philosophical debates.

[seren]

Furthermore....

;D I've just been doing a lot of thinking about this.

I'm going to try to put your argument in my words. Please tell me if I am right or missing the point.

Atheists claim that it is up to the believer to provide evidence that the believed in thing is real, beyond unprovable assertions that they have experienced it.

You say that is hypocritical, because everyday we believe ourselves and the universe to be real, but have no other proof other than that we observe it to be so.

Am I on the right lines? If so:

There cannot be any other kind of proof. There's a quote on this site somewhere...hang on....


"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a saying that's often used. It is true in some circumstances (in the possibility of there being alien life, for example) but not all. It is not true when there's an absence of evidence and we should expect to find that evidence.
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=argumentum_ad_ignorantiam.php

Since there is no other possible kind of evidence that we should expect to find that would suggest existence does in fact exist, beyond our observation of it, it is not unreasonable to accept our own observation as sufficient evidence. However, it doesn't follow that you can then apply that assumption to anything else. In other words, you can't necessarily use it to say that everything must have an observer in order to exist.

Does that make sense? These days thinking is like wading through melted cheese for me...

[Admin]

if everything needs an Observer to exist

Unless that premise has been verified you're dealing with an unsound argument here.

I haven't read through this thread but if that's a premise put forward to support a conclusion, I would want to know whether it's a concrete premise (which I strongly doubt) or an assumption.

[Fiona]

As I understand it (not a lot I confess) Alumon's argument seems to be that the idea of nothingness is inherently self contradictory. So there must be something. He then goes on to try to show that the only things which exist are "concepts" because everything is made up of energy which in turn (via einstien, Schrodinger and Born) is actually just numbers. Numbers are concepts so everything is concepts. Concepts are generated in a mind. Therefore the something there must be is a mind. He claims this is logical. I get lost at several points but especially at the bit where we get to the mind which holds the concepts - which must itself be a concept I suppose. I am wondering which mind it resides in. And I am also wondering if there is no possibility that a whole can be more than the sum of its parts

[seren]

Yeah, I should have made it clear I was really responding to a particular part of the essay Verum (you don't mind if I call you Verum, do you?) linked to. Specifically this part...


Does God exist? Theists say yes. Atheists say no. Whom am I to believe?

....

Quoting the great Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker says that without evidence an Atheistic (no God) philosophy is the only reasonable conclusion. He says, for example, we cannot prove there is not a tea pot in orbit around Mars but it would be ridiculous to even consider that such an object could possibly be circling that planet so we rightly don’t believe it. The problem I have with that point of view is that it is itself an unsubstantiated assertion about the “true” nature of the world. That it is composed of a "material" called "energy", that exists objectively without the need to be observed (though most admit they don't know what energy is), and thus there is absolutely no need of God and it makes that claim without proof that it is in fact true. If we can only legitimately come to conclusions that follow from valid premises or observations then Atheism must offer evidence that there is no God not just show a lack of evidence for It because that is not proof against It. And you can’t honestly criticize others for making untestable statements then turn around and do the same thing yourself (such as advocating the objective existence of energy for the only way to know the results of any test of it requires seeing them).

[Alumno deVerum]

I have posted the long version here to try to better explain my position:
http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum//showthread.php?t=1631

[Fiona]

Ok I have read the whole thing you posted in the other thread.


Absolute nothingness is paradoxical and thus can not exist. The concept of nothingness, however, does exist but is self-contradictory (a concept is not "no thing" it is an idea that represents "nothing") and therefore it is unstable so it must collapse into a state that is stable but in order to do that it has to have something in common with that state. Since the only property I can say nothingness has is it is a concept, I can only reduce it to something else that is also a concept and because concepts by definition must be observed by a mind that fundamental state can only be a concept that is self-referential (since there is nothing else to see it) and thus all it has to do is bend back on itself. So this is not "nothingness" observing itself but instead it is a stable closed, and thus self aware, concept that because of It's neutrality may still define "nothingness" while at the same time giving potential to everything else.

I still don't see why Absolute nothingness is paradoxical:just because we can think about it does not seem to me to show a paradox:we are thinking about an idea of "is not" and so there is indeed something to think about and something to think with. That does not give absolute nothing any properties in itself so where is the paradox? ( I am assuming that assertion is separate from the one which purports to address the question of how something can come from nothing since you seem to state it is inherently paradoxical on the basis of it having no properties, but I may be wrong. All this is pretty new to me)

Leaving that aside you agree that the concept of "nothingness" exists but you say it is self-contradictory. I ask again, how so? An idea of a thing is not the thing itself. I see no reason why it has to collapse. I am reasonably sure that in logic I can continue to hold the idea of nothingness for as long as I exist. Your contention makes sense in psychological terms only if you postulate that human beings are uncomfy with the notion: and indeed some of the early part of your argument seems to rest on psychology rather than logic so that may be what you mean. (incidentally I find the assertion that you can only think logically quite remarkable - you may well be unique :smiley:). But if that is what you mean I still cant get to your "God". I can collapse the idea to a concept and agree that a concept must be in a mind and I have a mind. Why do I need any more?

[Alumno deVerum]

If nothingness were absolute it would have no properties at all. That means there can not even be the potential for anything else to exist (potential is itself "something", for example potential energy). Therefore since you, if you agree with Descartes, exist then nothingness can not be absolute. That means nothingness is not nothing and that is a paradox.

What we call "nothingness" is really just a concept that is best defined as "no difference" or as an "empty set" but even an empty set is still a set.

There is a very good explanation of this in the Syntopicon of the Encyclopedia Britannica's Great Books Of The Western World series. It goes over the basic problem and how various philosophers have addressed it. It also lists works in the series that discuss it.

[Alumno deVerum]

If nothingness were absolute it would have no properties at all. That means here not even be the potential for anything else to exist. Since you, if you agree with Descartes, exist then nothingness can not be absolute. That means nothingness is not nothing and that is a paradox.

What we call "nothingness" is really just a concept that is best defined as "no difference" or as an "empty set" but even an empty set is still a set.

There is a very good explanation of this in the Syntopicon of the Encyclopedia Britannica's Great Books Of The Western World series. It goes over the basic problem and how various philosophers have addressed it. It also lists works in the series that discuss it.

[brodski]

Paradox of Nothingness short short version:
If you can dream it, nothing is impossible.

[Fiona]

even an empty set is still a set.


I don't want us to get sidetracked but although an empty bucket is still a bucket it is not water

[Alumno deVerum]

It has the potential to hold water though.

[Fiona]

I think "empty" is the thing you are looking for. Not bucket

[Alumno deVerum]

Any analogy like that you choose will be susceptible to misinterpretation. So skip it and just look around you. Do you see nothing or do you see something? If, like me, you see something that in itself proves nothingness is not absolute.

For something to exist it must have the potential to exist. If it does not have that potential it will not exist. But absolute nothingness is devoid of all property, thats why it is absolute. Potential is a property therefore absolute nothingness can not have any potential at all.

Since there is something rather than nothing there is potential and thus nothingness is not absolute. In other words nothingness is not nothing and that is a paradox.

[Fiona]

No sorry. Keeping on repeating it doesn't make it right. I can't see anything wrong with my analogy. It is a bucket full of empty. That is not a paradox because it is just a bucket which no water or anything else in it. When you put water in it it is a bucket of water. The bucket has not changed in any way. The empty is not there any more. But it was definitely empty before

[Cuddles]

Since there is something rather than nothing there is potential and thus nothingness is not absolute. In other words nothingness is not nothing and that is a paradox.

There's no paradox involved. If what you are calling nothing is in fact something, all that means is that you were wrong to call it nothing.

For example, I call something a duck. On further investigation I find out that it is made of metal, has four wheels and an engine and can drive along a road at 100mph. This doesn't mean the object has contradictory characteristics of being both a small waterfoul and a car, it simply means I was wrong to call it a duck. If nothingness is not actually nothingness, then it isn't nothingness. No paradox, you are just wrong.

[Alumno deVerum]

If nothingness is not actually nothingness, then it isn't nothingness. No paradox, you are just wrong.

That is the point of the essay. If nothingness is not nothing then there must be something. If you had read it you would know that. The point is what is that "something"?

Oh by the way thanks for making my point for me. But does that mean if I'm wrong your wrong too?

[Alumno deVerum]

Here is the relevant passage from the long version
( http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1631 ) since you missed the the parts in question I have highlighted them for you:


The cosmological argument says that if the cosmos (defined as what can be sensed as physical) cannot explain itself then an explanation must be found elsewhere. Einstein showed that the universe is a continuous energy field and the level of energy in it depends upon how much space curves overall. It may have a great deal of curvature locally but if the total curvature is zero because the energy of the outward expansion of the Big Bang is exactly balanced and canceled out by the force of gravity trying to pull it all back in then space/time is flat and there is no net kinetic energy to the universe as a whole. But how do I, a layman with no access to the instruments of an astronomer, know the Big Bang happened?

A clue can be found in a problem called Olbers’ paradox (named for a 19th century German astronomer named Heinrich Olber), which is a direct consequence of Newton’s theory of gravity. It asks why, if all the stars in the cosmos are attracted to each other is the night sky black? If Newton was right, it says, and the world has always existed as it is now, the sky should always be white! This is because all the stars would collapse together due to their mutual gravitational attraction unless there was something pulling them back and holding them in place. The only force known that could do that would be gravity pulling in the opposite direction which would mean that another star would have to be behind the first. But that star too would require a gravity source on the other side of it or it too would be pulled in and so on into infinity for no matter how many stars there were there would always have to be a balancing force on the other side so no matter where you looked ( since the stars are scattered in all directions) your line of sight would always lay on a path that led to the surface of a star thus making the night sky white.

Now it could be argued that the further out a star is the dimmer it appears because the light from it spreads out spherically and dims at a rate equal to the cube of the distance so that we just don’t see them. However, the volume of space increases at the same rate the further out you go and that space could accommodate more stars (providing more light), which would be needed to maintain a static universe.

Or may be there are vast clouds of obscuring dust blocking our view. But if that was true then wouldn’t they start to glow white from an infinity of absorbing all that radiant heat?

The third possibility that all the stars are lined up perfectly behind one another is so unlikely as to be absurd.

So no matter what it may be concluded that if the cosmos is static and unchanging the sky should be filled with an infinite number of stars and appear white. Since the night sky is black the universe must be finite and if it is finite it cannot be static.

There are only two possibilities to explain a finite universe; one – all the stars are moving toward each other, which would imply that they all were created separately far apart from each other, which is unlikely; or two – all the stars are moving away from each other, which would mean that they were created together in the far ancient past. The Big Bang.

An argument presents itself here and some philosophers have used this to try to make the connection between existence and non-existence; that the world is nothing more than a fluctuation in a vacuum similar to a virtual particle. This argument attempts to make a connection between something and nothing (if matter is just a form of energy it, too, is equivalent to zero or nothing) but in my opinion it actually fails because it uses the term zero (0) incorrectly.

To see for yourself what kind of problems can arise from the improper use of zero in mathematics study the problem below (the symbol ^2 denotes a square):

start with the equation: “a=b”
next multiplying both sides by “a” gives us “a^2 =ab”
subtract “b^2 from both sides to keep it equal “a^2-b^2 =ab-b^2
then factor “(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)”
now divide both sides by “a-b” “(a+b)(a-b)/a-b=b(a-b)/a-b”
giving us “a+b=b.”

If “a=b” and we make “a” equal to 1, then “b” also equals 1, but the last line of the equation states “a+b=b” or substituting 1 for “a” and “b” then 1+1=1 or 2=1. How can this be? If you go back and check all the steps there are no apparent mistakes in operation. This non-sensical answer arises when the equation “(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)” is divided by “a-b.” Until this particular operation is performed there are no difficulties. In fact the resolution of the problem up to that point equals an absolute value of zero. If “a=b” and both are equal to 1 then “a-b” is the same as 1-1=0 but dividing any number, even zero itself, by 0 (0/0 as is done here) is not allowed because it can lead to absurdities just like this if your not carefull (that point is the sole purpose of this demonstration, it is not meant to "prove" anything else so any other translation is a misinterpretation).

The reverse is also true. Zero divided by any number always equals zero:

0/2=0.

It would appear the proponents of this and similar arguments confuse 0 meaning “nothing” with 0 meaning “no difference”. In other words, it is AMBIGUOUS. It also violates a fundamental rule of mathematics, that is, zero divided by any number equals zero (half of nothing is still nothing).

In this case zero obviously means equilibrium, like a scale with 1 ounce of gold in each pan. The scale would read zero meaning no difference, but there would still be 2 ounces of gold. So I have no reason to conclude that uncertainty could explain the world “popping” into being like a virtual particle for the simple reason it seems that you must first have something to be uncertain about (besides even virtual particles need an infusion of pre-existing energy in order to become stable and thus “real” and where does that come from?). This doesn’t mean the universe isn’t flat. It very well could be, but this argument cannot be used to explain why it exists.

If the vacuum is a potential (as opposed to a kinetic) energy field and energy, regardless of form, is equivalent to matter (which is something) you can’t then assume the vacuum is the same as nothingness because, by simple logic, the vacuum must also be something (even “virtual” particles are dependent on the inherent uncertainty of a pre-existing continuum).

This argument violates the very foundations of the mathematics it is built upon (zero divided by two equals zero) and if you contradict the premise the conclusion you reach is invalid, so I have no reason to assume the cosmos, as described by this hypothesis, can explain itself. In fact as complexity appears to arise from simplicity, not the other way, around and a “flat” universe in which exactly half the energy in it is positive and attractive (gravity) and the other half is negative and repulsive (the outward expansion) seems to be the simplest possible physical description of the world I have no reason to assume a materialistic explanation can ever be found. This implies that there is something that must be pre-existent in order for the universe to exist. But what? And where did it come from? How can anything, even if it has no beginning in time, be created from nothing if such a thought violates the basic rules which led us here to begin with?

The root of the problem, in my opinion, lies in our common understanding of opposites. What most people consider to be opposites, actually have more in common than not. For instance, +2 and -2 are both integers and equidistant from the point of origin (0) on the number line. The only difference between them is one lies to the left of zero and the other to the right. Everything else about them is identical. In logic however, the opposite of +2 is not so precise.

The relationships that terms in a sentence have to each other are defined by the copula, the linking word(s) connecting subject to predicate. We link words either positively or negatively with “is” or “is not”. Therefore the opposite of +2 is that which is not +2. The color orange is not +2. A television is not +2. Therefore in this example anything that is not +2 is an opposite, but we commonly don’t think of them as such. In fact we usually don’t think of them at all. Negating only one property between two objects only tends to illustrate their closeness to each other. True opposites would have nothing in common. Taking this to its logical conclusion by applying the term “is not” to “being” as a whole we get an opposite of “no being” or absolute nothingness. A vacuum in physics, therefore, is not the same as nothingness. It is a potential energy field that may expand into a universe. This begs the question - “Why does the universe have the potential to exist?”

Logic says that for something to come from something else there must be something in common between them. In the syllogism it is the middle term that unites the major and minor premises and leads to a conclusion. A physical analogy might envision the energy passed from a cue ball to another ball, which is pocketed in a game of pool or in life it is the DNA passed from one generation to the next. So what does existence have in common with nothingness? Are they not complete opposites?

The answer is that they are both concepts. They are both ideas. That is what they have in common. It is the only thing they have in common. Nothingness is the only thing that may be thought of in completely negative terms except for the fact that it is a concept which is SOMETHING. Nothingness is a concept, you’re thinking about it right now!

Whatever you can conceive, anything at all that exists, you may negate it without contradiction simply by putting a variation of the words “is not” in front of it. By applying these two words to the totality of existence then we should arrive at the logical definition of "absolute nothingness". But the concept of nothingness itself can still be contemplated. Which means that nothingness is not absolute. Which means nothingness is not nothing. In other words nothingness by itself is a contradiction!

David Hume once pointed out that no thing is demonstrable unless its contrary implies a contradiction. The concept of nothingness results in contradiction, a violation of the most basic rule of logic, Nothingness can not be an idea while also being devoid of properties since we could not have performed the operations in logic that allowed us to define it. Nor can nothingness be absolute and a conceivable concept as there would literally be nothing to think about. Absolute means just that. Absolute. No exceptions. Not even potential. But since it is conceptual we can say it obviously does have potential which demonstrates there is no such thing as a “state of nothingness” nor can there be. Just saying, “non-existence exists” is absurd.

The only way to avoid a paradox is to have a stable non-contradictory state of existence as opposed to non-existence. Further to avoid a non-sequiter that state must be a fundamental concept in nature as that is the only connection between being and nothingness and because of that link the one can come from the other. It may be a triviality but saying, “existence exists” has no inherent contradiction. Nothingness is unstable because it is self-contradictory, and that is why, I believe, there is something instead of nothing.

The world more and more does seem to be just numbers, values, and probabilities. A materialist may say that the number nine, for instance, must be expressed physically as stones or coins to exist but what is the physical? Albert Einstein proved that mass (matter) is just energy in particle form. Erwin Schrodinger discovered that matter could be manifested as a wave, which is energy in kinetic form. And Max Born showed that waves are just the probability distribution of a possible event (that is where the particle will actually appear when the wave collapses). That event is mathematical in nature and mathematics itself is nothing more than the rules that govern numbers which, apparently, are concepts that can only be seen by the mind.

Others say the numbers themselves are merely the products of material processes in the brain we impose on the world. But it seems to me this is just substituting one unsubstantiated statement for another. One can not assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material. The brain is made of tissue composed of cells built from molecules of atoms that are particles of matter which is energy...

Basically the mistake you are making is in using an ambiguous definition of "nothingness". But as you can see I clearly make the distinction between "nothingness" and "absolute nothingness". So please if your going to criticize it do it for what it is not what you want it to be.

[seren]

Alumno it seems to me that what Fiona and Cuddles have been trying to say is that it's an idea. A concept. You say this yourself. It's a thought. The inability of the brain to fully comprehend nothingness is not evidence for god or anything else, other than the limitations and quirks of our thinking.

It's philosophical mind-play, that's all.

I Googled and found you spammed a whole lotta other forums with this- why is that? Are you proselytising? In many places you have received mostly praise and agreement, though some have just ignored you. One person questioned the bit about god to which you responded along the lines of god is outside the rules of the universe so "nice try". You do seem fond of these little "nice try" and "thanks for proving my point" comments which make you sound a bit arrogant and defensive, and I'm wondering why? If you don't like people critiquing your thoughts why make them public? In short, what is the motive behind this? What are you hoping to achieve? Whatever it is I doubt you'll get it here.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

The relationships that terms in a sentence have to each other are defined by the copula, the linking word(s) connecting subject to predicate. We link words either positively or negatively with “is” or “is not”.

That won't do. Logicians haven't bothered much with " is" as a copula since the days of Frege. One reason is that it promotes confusion between the " is" of predication ( as in " Snow is white") and, for example, the " is" of identity ( as in " Water is dihydrogen monoxide"). Another reason-and an important reason- is that it isn't needed for predication. If you want to express symbolically the thought that x is an F, you do it thus:" Fx". No copula needed.

And if you want to say, for example, that:
Nothing is both a unicorn and intractable to virgins

you write ~(Ex)(Ux.Ix)

In bastard English/symbolic: it is not the case that, for at least one value of x, x both is a unicorn and intractable to virgins.

You may prefer to put the thought, more naturally, as: all unicorns are tractable to virgins.
In that case, you can write: (x)(Ux>~Ix)

The important point is this: " nothing" has disappeared from the vernacular, the bastard, and the symbolic versions. It has been paraphrased out, precisely because it isn't essential.

" (is) nothing" is not an operator ( like " ~" or " .") or a quantifier ( like " E ") or a variable ( like " x") or a predicate ( like " U" or " I").



The answer is that they are both concepts. They are both ideas. That is what they have in common. It is the only thing they have in common. Nothingness is the only thing that may be thought of in completely negative terms except for the fact that it is a concept which is something. Nothingness is a concept, you’re thinking about it right now!

Whatever you can conceive, anything at all that exists, you may negate it without contradiction simply by putting a variation of the words “is not” in front of it. By applying these two words to the totality of existence then we should arrive at the logical definition of "absolute nothingness". But the concept of nothingness itself can still be contemplated. Which means that nothingness is not absolute. Which means nothingness is not nothing. In other words nothingness by itself is a contradiction!

" Is nothing" isn't a predicate. And any use of the word " nothingness" that suggests that " is nothing" is a predicate is not contradictory or paradoxical. It is unintelligible.

[Alumno deVerum]

Alumno it seems to me that what Fiona and Cuddles have been trying to say is that it's an idea. A concept. You say this yourself. It's a thought. The inability of the brain to fully comprehend nothingness is not evidence for god or anything else, other than the limitations and quirks of our thinking.

It's philosophical mind-play, that's all.

I Googled and found you spammed a whole lotta other forums with this- why is that? Are you proselytising? In many places you have received mostly praise and agreement, though some have just ignored you. One person questioned the bit about god to which you responded along the lines of god is outside the rules of the universe so "nice try". You do seem fond of these little "nice try" and "thanks for proving my point" comments which make you sound a bit arrogant and defensive, and I'm wondering why? If you don't like people critiquing your thoughts why make them public? In short, what is the motive behind this? What are you hoping to achieve? Whatever it is I doubt you'll get it here.

If you want to know what I am searching for I will tell you. I want someone to prove me wrong. Thats it. If you want a psychological profile here it is. I am a paramedic in one of the busiest EMS systems in the United States. I also skydive and mountain climb for fun. In addition I scuba dive and hold two black belts. What does that tell you about me?

If you can't guess I will tell you. I am not one who aspires to spend eternity twiddling my thumbs on a cloud. I want to believe that "all we are is dust in the wind." But I will not lie to myself and I see no evidence that is the case. But if you or anyone else here can show me any reason at all to doubt this I will, believe it or not, be gratefull. But it has to be legitimate and I haven't found that yet.

By the way I told people that they made a nice try because they did. I may be a bit arrogant but don't confuse that with a complement.


That won't do. Logicians haven't bothered much with " is" as a copula since the days of Frege. One reason is that it promotes confusion between the " is" of predication ( as in " Snow is white") and, for example, the " is" of identity ( as in " Water is dihydrogen monoxide"). Another reason-and an important reason- is that it isn't needed for predication. If you want to express symbolically the thought that x is an F, you do it thus:" Fx". No copula needed.

And if you want to say, for example, that:
Nothing is both a unicorn and intractable to virgins

you write ~(Ex)(Ux.Ix)

In bastard English/symbolic: it is not the case that, for at least one value of x, x both is a unicorn and intractable to virgins.

You may prefer to put the thought, more naturally, as: all unicorns are tractable to virgins.
In that case, you can write: (x)(Ux>~Ix)

The important point is this: " nothing" has disappeared from the vernacular, the bastard, and the symbolic versions. It has been paraphrased out, precisely because it isn't essential.

" (is) nothing" is not an operator ( like " ~" or " .") or a quantifier ( like " E ") or
a variable ( like " x") or a predicate ( like " U" or " I").




" Is nothing" isn't a predicate. And any use of the word " nothingness" that suggests that " is nothing" is a predicate is not contradictory or paradoxical. It is unintelligible.

I would like to agree with you but I have already considered and dismissed every one of the points you have made. I make no claims to be a logician or mathematician. But I did grow up in a household filled with mathematics. My father is a engineer. And I have also studied propositional calculus and Boolean algebra and did quite well. In fact I finished 1st in both. I have also discussed these points and many others with my father and my professors and while there were some who agreed with you I have to say they were in the minority and I found their rational unconvincing.

Besides that is only a small part of the "argument". In fact it is not a single argument at all. It is more a cluster of arguments that make me doubt materialism and hold to idealism. So while your critique by itself may be grounds for reasonable doubt when I consider them in relation with the other points I raise in the essay I just see no reason to believe they are enough to refute the conclusion I have reluctantly come to.

[seren]

I am a paramedic in one of the busiest EMS systems in the United States. I also skydive and mountain climb for fun. In addition I scuba dive and hold two black belts. What does that tell you about me?

Over-achiever? ;) :tongue:

Wow you're looking for something, aintcha?

But I don't quite believe you. There's a whole load of logical thinking out there to suggest that god doesn't exist, but it only takes one little quirk of thinking to convince you that he/she/it does. Albeit in a watered down, non-interventionist, not-actually-god-in-any-way-we-would-understand way.

That doesn't sound like someone who wants to be an atheist, it sounds more like an atheist who wants to believe. Does that sound fair?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the "nice try" comment. :smiley:

[Alumno deVerum]

Over-achiever? ;) :tongue:

Wow you're looking for something, aintcha?

But I don't quite believe you. There's a whole load of logical thinking out there to suggest that god doesn't exist, but it only takes one little quirk of thinking to convince you that he/she/it does. Albeit in a watered down, non-interventionist, not-actually-god-in-any-way-we-would-understand way.

That doesn't sound like someone who wants to be an atheist, it sounds more like an atheist who wants to believe. Does that sound fair?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the "nice try" comment. :smiley:

You are an absolute idiot.

[Cuddles]

You are an absolute idiot.

I'm truly glad you are here to enlighten us. Without your insight we would be lost, floating around aimlessly, forever unsure if the nothingness in which we exist was really a somethingness which we simply can't comprehend. Please, pour down more of your unparalled wisdom that we may bask in the glory which is you and your understanding.

[median]

You are an absolute idiot.

Now there's an interesting concept.

Alumno, from your OP


Some materialists argue that numbers are just manifestations of processes in the brain we impose upon the world.

Surely numbers are just abstractions. Perhaps, you are making the mistake of reification?

Regards

Median

[seren]

I don't think there's any reply I could give to Alumno's illuminating and witty riposte that could make him look any worse than he does already.

You are arrogance personified dearie. Do run along.

[Fiona]

I would like to agree with you but I have already considered and dismissed every one of the points you have made.Not here you haven't.



I found their rational unconvincing.
Do tell us why :smiley:


Besides that is only a small part of the "argument". In fact it is not a single argument at all. It is more a cluster of arguments that make me doubt materialism and hold to idealism. As I understood what you were saying it is the foundation of your argument. Without this there is no problem to be solved


You are an absolute idiot.I think you should apologise for that.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

A deV, you said:


" I would like to agree with you but I have already considered and dismissed every one of the points you have made."
Very well. Why not share your reasons with us?


" Besides that is only a small part of the 'argument'. In fact it is not a single argument at all. It is more a cluster of arguments that make me doubt materialism and hold to idealism."
We may, given time, get around to the rest of the argument(s). In the meantime, let me make two points. First: you can't defend a bad argument by saying that the desired conclusion can be reached by other, and better, arguments. Second: it isn't up to anyone here to defend materialism, whatever that may be. We are considering whether your argument stands up to scrutiny.


" So while your critique by itself may be grounds for reasonable doubt when I consider them in relation with the other points I raise in the essay I just see no reason to believe they are enough to refute the conclusion I have reluctantly come to." Again, two points. First: no one has the burden of refuting your conclusion. It's for you to show it. Second: I questioned the intelligibility of your Paradox. To say, as you do now, that I may have established " grounds for reasonable doubt" concedes either far too much or far too little. Or perhaps you have an understated sense of humour. :smiley:

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Pedantic self-correction. In post 130 I called " ." an operator. It is a connective.

[Alumno deVerum]

Pedantic self-correction. In post 130 I called " ." an operator. It is a connective.

Man its been so long since I studied that stuff you could tell me just about anything and I wouldn't know the difference. Maybe all this really is BS. In fact I really hope it is and you are right (inspite of what some here, with thier deep psychological insights, think). But I just don't see it. The points you made, it seems to me, would indeed hold true if it were assumed materialism were true but for the reasons I state in the essay I just don't think they are. But I will say this; you are a very talented thinker even though I think you are wrong.

[Alumno deVerum]

One more thing though. I would like to know how you can know the argument is bad if you haven't "gotten around to it" yet? Your an intelligent thinker but if you don't know what your talking about you don't know what your talking about. Nor do you have to defend materialism but if you don't hold yourself to the same standards you do others how can you criticize them? Just calling something bad doesn't make it bad. It only makes you look lazy.

I'll be gone for a while because its time for my biannual recertification for my paramedic but I'll check in every once in a while to see what other adjectives you can come up with to describe how misguided I am.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

One more thing though. I would like to know how you can know the argument is bad if you haven't "gotten around to it" yet? Your an intelligent thinker but if you don't know what your talking about you don't know what your talking about. Nor do you have to defend materialism but if you don't hold yourself to the same standards you do others how can you criticize them? Just calling something bad doesn't make it bad. It only makes you look lazy.

I'll be gone for a while because its time for my biannual recertification for my paramedic but I'll check in every once in a while to see what other adjectives you can come up with to describe how misguided I am.

A deV,

What we haven't got around to is discussing all of your extended argument. However, I have read it several times. Much of it, as I'm sure you know, is traditional stuff -from Aquinas, for example. So it's hardly surprising that I have a view.

As to holding myself to the same standards as others: I hope that I do. But even if I don't, there are others who will remind me. And one of those standards is respect for the burden of proof.

Finally, I haven't used any adjectives to which you can reasonably take exception. It's true that I questioned the intelligibility of your Paradox. But that is no insult.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Maybe all this really is BS.

But I just don't see it. The points you made, it seems to me, would indeed hold true if it were assumed materialism were true but for the reasons I state in the essay I just don't think they are.


You'll have to explain this one. I cannot see any assumptions about materialism, however defined, in my comments.

[seren]

(inspite of what some here, with thier deep psychological insights, think)

::)

Wow, talk about sensitive- still thinking about my harsh words eh?
Why do you care to mention what an absolute idiot thinks?

You're too thin-skinned for this lark. Grow a sense of humour, develop some humility and....no, it'll never happen. Just go away. Please.

PS There is an "ignore" function on this board. I urge you to put me on ignore. I shall reciprocate.

[Alumno deVerum]

I haven't used any adjectives to which you can reasonably take exception. It's true that I questioned the intelligibility of your Paradox. But that is no insult.

I don't take exception. I'm just surprised that you said that. Out of all the responses I have received on the various boards I have posted this on, both pro and con, you are the only person I can recall who ever said it was unintelligible. So I don't know whether it is simply over your head (which I doubt) or you are just saying that because you have no real criticism to apply to it.

[Alumno deVerum]

::) Wow, talk about sensitive- still thinking about my harsh words eh?

No. Just stupid.

[Alumno deVerum]

You'll have to explain this one. I cannot see any assumptions about materialism, however defined, in my comments.

It assumes "nothingness" is "no thing". But if it is a concept and the world is basically idealistic it is just as eligible to considered as a subject as any other concept.

[brodski]

No. Just stupid.

Well, you said it.

[brodski]

It assumes "nothingness" is "no thing". But if it is a concept and the world is basically idealistic it is just as eligible to considered as a subject as any other concept.

Isn't that assuming your conclusion?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

It assumes "nothingness" is "no thing".

First: I haven't made any such assumption- if only because I don't know what it means.

Second: your use of inverted commas here makes you seem to say that two locutions are one and the same. I'm sure you didn't mean that, but if you want to pursue the point you'll need to explain what you mean.


But if it is a concept and the world is basically idealistic it is just as eligible to considered as a subject as any other concept.

Well, if it's a concept, it's a distinctly odd one. Have a think about how the suffix ness is used in English. Generally, it is used to form an abstract noun. And there is a clear link with the corresponding predicate. For example, whiteness is the state of being white, and is an attribute of anything that satisfies the predicate " is white". So far, so humdrum.
Now try the same thing with " nothingness". If we are to treat nothingness as an attribute in the same way, we need something that satisfies the predicate " is nothing". Beats me. But then, I think there's something very odd in the first place about your treatment of the word of the word " nothing".

As to idealism: I propose to put it to one side for the moment. Your Paradox should be able to stand on its own feet. However, if you feel that we must tackle idealism right now, please let me know.



Out of all the responses I have received on the various boards I have posted this on, both pro and con, you are the only person I can recall who ever said it was unintelligible. So I don't know whether it is simply over your head (which I doubt) or you are just saying that because you have no real criticism to apply to it.

The only person? You'll be accusing me of originality next! :smiley:
Let me go back to the point about paraphrase. A good paraphrase, in any context, will preserve certain features of the original. In a logical context, it will preserve features such as truth-value, self-contradiction ( necessary falsehood) and paradoxicality ( instability of truth-value). By the same token, if apparent self-contradiction or paradoxicality in the original disappears in a good paraphrase, you have a pretty clear indication that these are only apparent features: that they are products of a misleading, or at any rate seriously misunderstood, idiom. And that, I am suggesting, is what has happened in your Paradox. You have misunderstood how the word " nothing" works.

[Alumno deVerum]

If, according to your semantic contortions, nothingness were not a thing how could be talking about it?

But if you don't know what I mean by the term all you have to do is read the long version. Unless of course you lack the intellectual discipline to read anything longer than a thought bubble in the daily comics.

You can find it here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1631

[Cuddles]

If, according to your semantic contortions, nothingness were not a thing how could be talking about it?

In exactly the same we can talk about invisible pink unicorns and chocolate teapots orbiting Pluto. Do you really think that everything anyone ever says must be real? You must have a hard time dealing with the fiction section in bookshops.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

If, according to your semantic contortions, nothingness were not a thing how could be talking about it?

But if you don't know what I mean by the term all you have to do is read the long version. Unless of course you lack the intellectual discipline to read anything longer than a thought bubble in the daily comics.

You can find it here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1631

A deV,

Welcome back, I suppose.

Cuddles has already offered an answer, with which I entirely agree, to your first point. I should add only this: there are noun-phrases that not only do not but cannot refer to anything at all. " The greatest number" is one. I'm sure you can think of others.

As to your suggestion that I should read the long version of your Paradox: we have already discussed this. I read it, and said that I had read it, some months ago. Nothing in your long version supports your Paradox. You still haven't got the hang of how the word " nothing" works.

[Alumno deVerum]

In exactly the same we can talk about invisible pink unicorns and chocolate teapots orbiting Pluto. Do you really think that everything anyone ever says must be real? You must have a hard time dealing with the fiction section in bookshops.

Nope and I explain why I think such things are nonsense.


A deV,

Welcome back, I suppose.

Cuddles has already offered an answer, with which I entirely agree, to your first point. I should add only this: there are noun-phrases that not only do not but cannot refer to anything at all. " The greatest number" is one. I'm sure you can think of others.

As to your suggestion that I should read the long version of your Paradox: we have already discussed this. I read it, and said that I had read it, some months ago. Nothing in your long version supports your Paradox. You still haven't got the hang of how the word " nothing" works.

Bullshit.

[Alumno deVerum]

Nothing in your long version supports your Paradox. You still haven't got the hang of how the word " nothing" works.

You just don't get it. There is no paradox because there is no "nothing". But if you think I'm wrong please explain to me just how "nothing" works.

[ZERO]

there is no "nothing".

What is outside the universe?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

You just don't get it. There is no paradox because there is no "nothing". But if you think I'm wrong please explain to me just how "nothing" works.


Look back two pages. I've already shown you how to paraphrase it out.

[Alumno deVerum]

Look back two pages. I've already shown you how to paraphrase it out.

Look below your paraphrase and you'll see why I think that criticism doesn't work. It's only a problem if you assume a materialistic world view. In that case nothing leads to nonsensical answers because it is not a referent. That problem does not arise in idealism. You're not the only person who has studied logic and philosophy.


What is outside the universe?

That is a meaningless question.

[ZERO]

That is a meaningless question.

No, I don't think so.

As far as I know, our universe is an expanding bubble of time and space.
No time and space = a total, utter, terrible, unimaginable....nothing.

If you don't accept that as an example of nothing, how about this:

What did you experience 100 years before you were born?

[Alumno deVerum]

I went back and read the post you referred to. I don't think you understand "your" own reply. In fact I think it's something you just googled. There is an old saying, "If you can't dazzle'm with brilliance baffle'm with bullshit." And that's just what you're trying to do.

The fact you apparently don't understand the basis for "your" own criticism or the fact that referring to others as you did is itself just a form of argument from authority or that there is a universal agreement on it leads me to think this "argument" is simply over your head so you just tried to disguise your ignorance behind a facade of mathematics you don't understand.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Look below your paraphrase and you'll see why I think that criticism doesn't work. It's only a problem if you assume a materialistic world view. In that case nothing leads to nonsensical answers because it is not a referent. That problem does not arise in idealism. You're not the only person who has studied logic and philosophy.

A deV,

You're going in circles. I've offered a logical criticism of your attempt to frame the Paradox. You then say I'm making materialist assumptions. I ask you to show these assumptions. You say that without materialist assumptions the Paradox would stand up...

This has nothing to do with materialism and idealism. It has to do with logic. If you think that " nothing" should not be paraphrased out in the way I've suggested, you'll have to show why. If there is anything to your Paradox, you should be able to do that without dragging materialism and idealism into it.

[Fiona]

Look below your paraphrase and you'll see why I think that criticism doesn't work. It's only a problem if you assume a materialistic world view. In that case nothing leads to nonsensical answers because it is not a referent. That problem does not arise in idealism. You're not the only person who has studied logic and philosophy.

Well I haven't studied logic and philosophy so I cannot engage at that level. But I also read your piece, both long and short versions. And so far as I can see you really are going in circles, and this post shows why.

1. You appear to have begun from the assumption that if you have a materialist world view, then a paradox arises.
2. To resolve this paradox you assume that the adoption of an idealistic stance is necessary
3. Lord Muck and others have denied that the paradox exists: ie they are challenging your initial assumption
4. You attempt to answer that challenge by assuming that which is being challenged

"I see nobody on the road," said Alice.

"I only wish I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too! Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!"


Now I may be wrong about all of this but that is how the argument looks to me. All of the rest of your beautiful edifice is built on the foundation of the paradox and so you have to answer the challenge made before we get to the rest. :smiley:

[Alumno deVerum]

If, as you say, I don't know how "nothingness" works then neither does Victor J Stenger professor of physics and author of God The Failed Hypothesis, which, according to Richard Dawkins, is one of the most important books on Atheism written in years.

His take on why there is something rather than nothing is essentially identical to what I wrote in the long version of the Paradox Of Nothingness. Basically he says the world exists because nothingness is unstable and undergoes a phase shift into somethingness. This is possible, he says, the "value" of the universe is equivalent to zero. That is things cancel out. That is the basis of the argument I discuss in the long version that says if matter is equivalent to energy and the universe is an energy field and if the outward expansion of the big bang were exactly balanced by the inward pull of gravity then the two would cancel out and there would be no net energy to the universe as a whole. And since matter is just a form of energy it too would be equivalent to zero or "nothing".

I also use almost the same terminology Stenger does in my essay. The only difference is I go one question further. I ask if nothingness is absolute how can anything come from it? The answer came to is simply nothingness cannot be absolute because if it were then it would be completely without property. But potential is a property. So if nothingness is not absolute it must be something but what is that something? In a word it is a concept best defined as
'no difference" or "equilibrium" rather than "without property".

But if the world is logical it must obey the rules of logic and one of the most fundamental says that for something to come from something else there must be a commonality between them or you have a non-sequiter. Therefore if the world comes from nothing (defined as equilibrium) it must also be a concept and as concepts seem to require an observer in order to exist themselves (I can have 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but I cannot point to anything in nature and say "this is the number 9 by itself" I can only think about it then it must also be observed. That is easily accomplished by simply bending that fundamental concept back on itself making it self referential. We know self referential concepts exist. Descartes proved it, "I think therefore I am."

I then compare such an idealistic world with a materialistic one and show how while materialism is full of philosophical problems idealism is not (including the fallacy that concepts are just processes in a material brain). But if, as you say, you had read it you would know that and at least offered some defense of materialism. Instead all I get is someone saying whats in an empty bucket? apparently not realizing the bucket itself is something.

So either you lied and did not read it or you have one of the worst cases of reading comprehension I've seen in a long long time.

But you can judge that for yourself. Here once again is the link: http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1631

[Dr B]

yawn.........:alarm:

[Lord Muck oGentry]

But you can judge that for yourself. Here once again is the link: http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1631

My judgement on your essay? I rather enjoyed it.
It was funny without being vulgar.