The most logical belief

Zombrex

pH wrote:

In what meaningful way does anyone 'have to' assign probabilities? Is there a man with a gun forcing anyone?

The OP was stating that in probability theory in the absence of known probabilities you default to working with 0.5 (or 1/N if you have more than 2 possible outcomes) ... which I don't think is actually true unless all outcomes are equally likely, which in this case that is unknown.

When the likelyhood of outcomes are not known you default to using 1/x where 0 <= x <= 1 for each probability, which is the same as saying "unknown".

Thats my understanding of probabilty anyways....

Zombrex

Alex S. wrote:

There is no logic, which supports that athesim is correct.

There is, but it isn't mathematical logic, it is philisophical logic.

I stated it above

Doesn't anyone read my posts :eek:

robindch

> Doesn't anyone read my posts

Not sure about yours, but the OP certainly didn't bother reading mine!

(pats invisible unicorn around where its head should be)

Alex S.

Wicknight wrote:

There is, but it isn't mathematical logic, it is philisophical logic.

I stated it above

Doesn't anyone read my posts :eek:

I just reread your philosophical arguement and I don't think it's points to a logical conclusion of aethism.
First of all, here is some background on what I consider logic:

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic.html

I think the fallacy in your atheism argument is:

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic2.html

You are saying that humans invented the concept of God, but that begs the question of whether that the fact that humans invented the concept of something means whether it is true or not?
It doesn't answer anything.

Your thoughts...

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

Not sure about yours, but the OP certainly didn't bother reading mine!

Sorry, did someone say something .... ?

Zombrex

Alex S. wrote:

You are saying that humans invented the concept of God, but that begs the question of whether that the fact that humans invented the concept of something means whether it is true or not?

Oh god (no pun intended) we have another Scofflaw .....

In a pure theoretical logic class room, no it doesn't. In the real world, it does to such a degree of certainty that I would be quite happy to say "I'm certain".

As robindch was trying to point out with his unicorn (i preferr dragons), having a completely agnostic view about everything, while being theoretically logically correct, makes living life a bit complicated.

How do you know for certain right now you are not about to get killed by a falling dragon (apologies Scofflaw, I'll keep this brief).

In a theoetical logical frame work you actually don't. You don't even know what the odds or probability of such an event happening are.

Does that mean that back in the real world each minute you are constantly looking up to make sure a dragon is not about to fall on your head? I seriously doubt it. Faced with this concept you probably, through your own internal reasoning system, have concluded that actually no you are quite certain to such a degree that you are happy with that such an event is not going to happen. The logical reasons for this certainty are probably long and varied. It is correct to say that you don't believe you are about to (or probably ever) going to be hit by a falling dragon. You, i'd imagine, are certain about that. You are atheist about falling dragons, and you would most likely believe this is a quite logical conclusion, and you would probably be considered a bit weird if you didn't think this was logical and were constantly checking above your head to make sure a dragon isn't about to land on your head.

Alex S.

Wicknight wrote:

Oh god (no pun intended) we have another Scofflaw .....

In a pure theoretical logic class room, no it doesn't. In the real world, it does to such a degree of certainty that I would be quite happy to say "I'm certain".

As robindch was trying to point out with his unicorn (i preferr dragons), having a completely agnostic view about everything, while being theoretically logically correct, makes living life a bit complicated.

How do you know for certain right now you are not about to get killed by a falling dragon (apologies Scofflaw, I'll keep this brief).

In a theoetical logical frame work you actually don't. You don't even know what the odds or probability of such an event happening are.

Does that mean that back in the real world each minute you are constantly looking up to make sure a dragon is not about to fall on your head? I seriously doubt it. Faced with this concept you probably, through your own internal reasoning system, have concluded that actually no you are quite certain to such a degree that you are happy with that such an event is not going to happen. The logical reasons for this certainty are probably long and varied. It is correct to say that you don't believe you are about to (or probably ever) going to be hit by a falling dragon. You, i'd imagine, are certain about that. You are atheist about falling dragons, and you would most likely believe this is a quite logical conclusion, and you would probably be considered a bit weird if you didn't think this was logical and were constantly checking above your head to make sure a dragon isn't about to land on your head.

The Dragon / Unicorn arguement is very poor.
All it is doing is going to complete extremes and trivialising the debate.
Refer, to point 6 of arguing logically:
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic6.html

In this case the dragon / unicorn analogy is just ridiculous.

Tar.Aldarion

robindch wrote:

Agnosticism, as Wicknight says above, is not a belief, it's a position concerning the existence of god into which one is pushed by sound logic.

That's why I had 'belief' thusly in little marks.

Once there, you can start applying your own personal beliefs, based upon whatever evidence, or lack of evidence, that you wish -- and end up believing that either god exists (getting you to theism or some regional variation), or that god doesn't exist (getting you to atheism).

I agree that once there, you then assert your beliefs, but I believe you can still come to the conclusion of agnosticism as a third answer.

Again, atheism isn't "more logical" than agnosticism; it's simply an assertion concerning the existence of god starting from a position of agnosticism, but bearing in mind the available evidence for god.

Make sense?

It does indeed, that is what I think, I was asking the person that claimed atheism as 'more logical'.

The Atheist wrote:

Is agnosticism not a belief that we do not, or can not know about the existence of god(s)?

I hate definitions, they are why I can't give definite answers.
I would call open minded atheists, one's that admit they could be wrong and that there could be a god, agnostics. (Then again solipsosm is a bit of a cop out?)
But what is a god? I can't even define that for myself. I suppose that answer is different for each person and you base your beliefs around that.
Ok let's say, for a said atheist, a god can exist in their view.
They believe one doesn't, they believe it a lot, as it were. Yet, they admit they could be wrong, there may eb a god but they weight it up and they think there isn't, does this not make them agnostic to you?
It does for me.

Wicknight's sky pixies must have whisked him off to a better place.

haha! Those are my favourite analogies.

Wicknight wrote:

For me the logic that supports atheism is that we (humans) invented the concept of gods, so how can God exist if he/it was just an invention of our collective culture. The likelyhood, the probability, that something we invented actually existing in the universe, is relatively slim as to be quite improbable.

We certainly invented the concept of Earthly gods but not of a god I would say. It depends on how you define god. If god for somebody is the thing that created or did not create the universe etc, then we do not know. We can't comprehend something just being there, forever, and not being created. But then, flip it around, how could this god exist forever, if this is a necessary trait for this god.

I don't even know if a god can exist to me or not, I could be atheist and not know it.

As Scofflaw and others will probably point out I can't know we invented God for certain, or that even if we invented the concept of a god that doesn't mean that we by pure fluke got it absolutely correct and such an entity does actually exist. But then again I can't technically know anything, from a logic position. The only things that are actually true are logical tautologies, which only exist in theoretical logic class rooms.

We don't have to have gotten the concept right fully, I would suppose that I need everybodies personal opinion of what is a god and what is not before I can tackle the question with them. If your god has to have a white beard, I guess it's more than likely he does not exist.

So while being agnostic in relation to God is technically the most logical position, that position isn't based on the idea that there is a lot of good reasons to think there might be a God, more on the logical reality that you cannot ever know for certain anything. There are in fact, as far as I'm concerned, no good reasons to think there might actually be a God.

Which is why, out here in the real world away from the logic class rooms, I'm an atheists because I believe, based on my understanding of human history and culture, that we invented the concept of gods and as such they can't exist in the real world, any more than the invisable green unicorn sitting beside me (called Bob).

Yes, as we can never really know anything for certain, solipsism gets agnosticism a technical advantage. However, a god is a much more fundamental concept than your pink my little pony mate Bob. It has much more of an influence. There was a big bang(it wasn't really a big bang as in an explosion but lets leave that) and well, something created it or something did not. We physics theories such as string/M theory, it may have been two other universes hitting sides and creating another universe with the energy. Yet, going back t when the beginning of the first one the same question stil applies. Some people would say that if something was so powerful to create the universe, it must be a god. Others would say that this supposed entity is just a powerful alien etc.

If something "god-like" does actually exists it is something else, some as yet unknown entity, because the clasification "god" is invalid to begin with.

This is why I am agnostic, people tend to hold Earthly qualities as to something being a god. The christian god for most of us, by default. If something does exist then it is most likely an unknown quantity.
I don't hold to the normal concept, I think that 'god' is invalid.
It boils down to,for me, can something ever be a god or would you call it a powerful alien? A godlike alien with no possibility of there being something that could be called a god?
Would a god have to be corporeal? Would it be just energy, would it be the essence of the laws of the universe?


Now I will have a cup of coffee and chat with Bob.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

The OP was stating that in probability theory in the absence of known probabilities you default to working with 0.5 (or 1/N if you have more than 2 possible outcomes) ... which I don't think is actually true unless all outcomes are equally likely, which in this case that is unknown.

When the likelyhood of outcomes are not known you default to using 1/x where 0 <= x <= 1 for each probability, which is the same as saying "unknown".

Thats my understanding of probabilty anyways....

And it's correct, unless you have to assign a probability, or choose to do so.

Say I'm working on an e-commerce system which must consider fraud. I then have to assign a probability that any transaction is fraudulent. So, I make an educated guess at the probability of any given transaction being fraudulent, and I can pretty much assign any probability I like. I expect my original probability to be dragged closer to reality by empirical testing.

Similarly, if someone poses the question "God(s) or no God(s)" as a probability question, then one can either dismiss the question (as you're doing) on the basis that the probabilities are unknowable and unguessable, or assign probabilities.

What is neat is that either case supports the agnostic position, which is the point of the thread.

I personally think it's funny.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Alex S. wrote:

In this case the dragon / unicorn analogy is just ridiculous.

Thats the point, you wouldn't even consider the possibility that an imaginary or mythical animal is going to fall out of the sky at any moment and kill you, despite the fact that you don't actually have any logical proof at your disposal to show this isn't going to happen.

So how is the concept of a all powerful onipetant god any different?

The point of the example of the unicorn or dragon is to show that sticking to strick mathematical logic doesn't work very well when you are back in the real world.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Oh god (no pun intended) we have another Scofflaw .....

Tremble, ye of...little...faith? No, that can't be right. Tremble, ye of....much faith who believe that their faith is purely logic? Better, but not snappy. I'll work on it.

Wicknight wrote:

In a pure theoretical logic class room, no it doesn't. In the real world, it does to such a degree of certainty that I would be quite happy to say "I'm certain".

As I've said before, neither pizza, nor gods, nor dragons, are logically supportable from scratch. All are "made up" by humans, as are taxes, and the theory of taxation. Does this mean they are all untrue? No, or at least I've been unable to persuade the Revenue of it.

So, if humans made up God, does that have any implications for God's existence? No. As I'm sure wolfsbane would tell you, humans made up the "theory of evolution" - it's not a real thing, it's a mental construct. Does it correspond to reality? Yes.

Wicknight wrote:

As robindch was trying to point out with his unicorn (i preferr dragons), having a completely agnostic view about everything, while being theoretically logically correct, makes living life a bit complicated.

How do you know for certain right now you are not about to get killed by a falling dragon (apologies Scofflaw, I'll keep this brief).

In a theoetical logical frame work you actually don't. You don't even know what the odds or probability of such an event happening are.

Dragons, and pixies, and unicorns, are sufficiently tightly specified to be susceptible of empirical proof. God is sufficiently nebulous not to be.

If one of God's characteristics is that he can only be "perceived" by the believer, and another that he is sufficiently powerful to enforce that, it becomes impossible for the skeptic to use empirical techniques to "discover" God. As we know, those who are believers say that the evidence supports God's existence, and that, as skeptics, we have deliberately closed our minds to evidence of God. That point cannot be resolved by all these arguments about pixies.

Wicknight wrote:

You are atheist about falling dragons, and you would most likely believe this is a quite logical conclusion, and you would probably be considered a bit weird if you didn't think this was logical and were constantly checking above your head to make sure a dragon isn't about to land on your head.

You are making your usual incorrect assumption. To be atheist (adrakonic?) about dragons is to make a positive statement of disbelief. I believe dragons are extremely unlikely, to the point where I need not concern myself about them. This isn't actually the way I operate with respect to God, since, as I've said before, claims of evidentiary support for God, and evidentiary support for belief in God, are extremely widespread, which makes the dragon argument so weak an analogy as to be irrelevant.

cordially as ever,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

We certainly invented the concept of Earthly gods but not of a god I would say. It depends on how you define god. If god for somebody is the thing that created or did not create the universe etc, then we do not know.

Going to nip this in the bud right away before we run into the problem we had on the forum a few months ago.

"God" does not mean "anything one likes" ... if someone feels that funny feeling in the back of their head when they do something wrong is "God", or if someone else feels the smile on a child's face is "God", this debate is going to quickly spiral into pointlessness.

A "god" is a defined concept. If one believes in something that doesn't fit the standard definition of a god then they should pick another word to classify it.

Right that out of the way moving on ....

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Yes, as we can never really know anything for certain, solipsism gets agnosticism a technical advantage. However, a god is a much more fundamental concept than your pink my little pony mate Bob.

Only because believers in God say it is. In reality, or to an atheists, it isn't a fundamental concept at all. In fact it is a quite silly and non-logical concept, along the lines of Santa Claus.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

It has much more of an influence.

The influence of a concept is no reflection on if it is true or not. The idea that everything in the world was made up of 4 elements, earth wind water fire, was a hugely influencental idea in the middle ages, and that was complete make believe.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Some people would say that if something was so powerful to create the universe, it must be a god.

Why would they say that? Is it simply because they can't be bothered picking a better definition?

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I don't hold to the normal concept, I think that 'god' is invalid.

Then you are an atheist. What ever you believe in it isn't a god. Just because you don't have a name for you concept doesn't mean clasifying it as "god" is a particularly good idea. In fact it is a quite bad idea because it makes discussion quite confusing, as has happened on this forum a number of times.

Alex S.

Wicknight wrote:

Thats the point, you wouldn't even consider the possibility that an imaginary or mythical animal is going to fall out of the sky at any moment and kill you, despite the fact that you don't actually have any logical proof at your disposal to show this isn't going to happen.

So how is the concept of a all powerful onipetant god any different?

The point of the example of the unicorn or dragon is to show that sticking to strick mathematical logic doesn't work very well when you are back in the real world.

Ha Ha, I am assuming your tongue is in your cheek and you are just winding me up trying to get me to explain why this analogy is flawed. Come on! Serious debate please.

Sapien

Alex S. wrote:

Ha Ha, I am assuming your tongue is in your cheek and you are just winding me up trying to get me to explain why this analogy is flawed. Come on! Serious debate please.

Well, I'm intrigued...

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Say I'm working on an e-commerce system which must consider fraud. I then have to assign a probability that any transaction is fraudulent. So, I make an educated guess at the probability of any given transaction being fraudulent, and I can pretty much assign any probability I like. I expect my original probability to be dragged closer to reality by empirical testing.

Well that is true, but thats not what the OP was talking about.

You assign it X and hope that the range 0 <= X <= 1 decreases to a specific value. After one test it might be 0 <= X <= 0.5 etc etc.

If you are writing an actual computer program at some point you have to assign a random value to X, but that is a necessity of computer programming, not logic. A computer doesn't understand "X"

But that doesn't mean the random value you assign to X is valid as an assumption. It most likely isn't. The forumal P(a) = X where 0 <= X <= 1 is still the only valid assumption that can be made about X.

Scofflaw wrote:

What is neat is that either case supports the agnostic position, which is the point of the thread.

0 <= X <= 1 basically is the agnostic position.

X = 0.5 is being more certain about something that an agnositc would probably want to get, even if it is just an educated guess

Zombrex

Alex S. wrote:

Ha Ha, I am assuming your tongue is in your cheek and you are just winding me up trying to get me to explain why this analogy is flawed. Come on! Serious debate please.

Its not tounge in cheek, its pointing out that your logic for why we should all be agnostics in relation to God also means we should all be agnostics in relation to falling dragons and invisable unicorns. Which I doubt you are, so why apply that to the concept of God and not to the concept of any other possible creature or entity?

There is a rather strange belief amoung people who grow up in western religious cultures that the concept of "God" is some how more logical or worthy of consideration than other "ridiculous" concepts because so many people already believe in it. That logic is seriously flawed.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

If you are writing an actual computer program at some point you have to assign a random value to X, but that is a necessity of computer programming, not logic. A computer doesn't understand "X"

But that doesn't mean the random value you assign to X is valid as an assumption. It most likely isn't. The forumal P(a) = X where 0 <= X <= 1 is still the only valid assumption that can be made about X.


0 <= X <= 1 basically is the agnostic position.

X = 0.5 is being more certain about something that an agnositc would probably want to get.

Again, yes, true. The whole thing only arises if you choose or have to assign a probability. It's a thought experiment - I'm not sure why it generates quite so much hostility.

P(a) = X where 0 <= X <= 1 may be valid, but it's also useless.

Wicknight wrote:

"God" does not mean "anything one likes" ... if someone feels that funny feeling in the back of their head when they do something wrong is "God", or if someone else feels the smile on a child's face is "God", this debate is going to quickly spiral into pointlessness.

A "god" is a defined concept. If one believes in something that doesn't fit the standard definition of a god then they should pick another word to classify it.

Oho! Is "God" a defined concept? Defined by whom? Would you like to pull out the "standard definition", perhaps? One that actually covers all gods?

P(rubbish)->1!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Tremble, ye of...little...faith? No, that can't be right. Tremble, ye of....much faith who believe that their faith is purely logic?

Its not "faith" ... its common sense. There is a difference, as I'm sure people who actually do have faith in something would be at pains to point out.

Technically there is no way to know for certain that Gill in typing is still actually there and has not turned into a 3 headed lava monster. But most likely she hasn't. If you think my real world certaintiy for that fact is not valid and is actually nothing more than faith, well I suppose I ain't going to argue with that.

Scofflaw wrote:

Does this mean they are all untrue?

How is "tax" either true of false? If you mean the fact that tax exists it exists because we made it. If we hadn't it wouldn't exist.

Scofflaw wrote:

So, if humans made up God, does that have any implications for God's existence? No. As I'm sure wolfsbane would tell you, humans made up the "theory of evolution" - it's not a real thing, it's a mental construct. Does it correspond to reality? Yes.

Humans didn't "make up" the concept of evolution, evolution was observed and reasoned to be happening. Evolution would be happening even if we weren't here.

If someone has seen a god, or gods, or just the God, then I would happily take back the statement that humans made up the concept of God.

Scofflaw wrote:

Dragons, and pixies, and unicorns, are sufficiently tightly specified to be susceptible of empirical proof.

How are they susceptible to empirical proof? How do you proof a dragon isn't about to fall on your head?

Scofflaw wrote:

That point cannot be resolved by all these arguments about pixies.

The argument about pixies (I don't remember ever actually using the term pixie by the way) is not for the believers, its for the agonostics who claim the only sensible position is to be agnositc about God, while also claiming that being agnositic about other things like dragons and pixies (damn it!) is not sensible. That doesn't make sense.

The logic used to justify the agnostic position holds exactly the same for falling dragons and invisiable unicorns.

Scofflaw wrote:

claims of evidentiary support for God, and evidentiary support for belief in God, are extremely widespread, which makes the dragon argument so weak an analogy as to be irrelevant.

Well now you are into a totally different argument.

If you believe God might be real because you can't explain away some of the things that people claim to have experienced, that is fair enough.

But that argument is largely unconnected to the original argument about logic for agnosticism.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Oho! Is "God" a defined concept? Defined by whom? Would you like to pull out the "standard definition", perhaps? One that actually covers all gods?

If "God" can mean anything this discussion is going to go no where very fast.

Can my stapler beside me on my desk be a god because I say so? If so I've just proved beyond all doubt gods exit. All hail me. Where is my nodel prize.

Would everyone like to see my god/stapler ....

Tar.Aldarion

Wicknight wrote:

Going to nip this in the bud right away before we run into the problem we had on the forum a few months ago.

"God" does not mean "anything one likes" ... if someone feels that funny feeling in the back of their head when they do something wrong is "God", or if someone else feels the smile on a child's face is "God", this debate is going to quickly spiral into pointlessness.

A "god" is a defined concept. If one believes in something that doesn't fit the standard definition of a god then they should pick another word to classify it.

Right that out of the way moving on ....

What is your definition of god then?
Why is it right and other people's wrong?

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Under clause five, I deem myself a god.


More: http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+god&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Anyway, what is your definition of a god, or should I say the definition of a god, as you seem to know it?

I don't think there is one.

Only because believers in God say it is. In reality, or to an atheists, it isn't a fundamental concept at all. In fact it is a quite silly and non-logical concept, along the lines of Santa Claus.

How so?
Take the originatorof the universe bit of the definition, something created the universe of something didn't.
The only Santa Claus type aspect to gods I can see is the gods of organised religions.

The influence of a concept is no reflection on if it is true or not. The idea that everything in the world was made up of 4 elements, earth wind water fire, was a hugely influencental idea in the middle ages, and that was complete make believe.

Taking the originator of the universe definition, there are only two outcomes, something created the universe, something did not. It is more likely than this pink unicorn and then again it isn't, depending on what aspect you look at. As there are more definitions of a god, it could be different things.

Why would they say that? Is it simply because they can't be bothered picking a better definition?

Because that is one of the definitions.

Then you are an atheist. What ever you believe in it isn't a god. Just because you don't have a name for you concept doesn't mean clasifying it as "god" is a particularly good idea. In fact it is a quite bad idea because it makes discussion quite confusing, as has happened on this forum a number of times.

I disagree, even under varying definitions of a god, what I believe could exist, could be called a god to people.
You seem to have a definite answer as to what is a god, I don't think that definition exists.


[edit]If "God" can mean anything this discussion is going to go now where fast.

Can my stapler beside me on my desk be a god because I say so? If so I've just proved beyond all doubt gods exit. All hail me.

Would you all like to see my god/stapler ....[/quote]
Then what does god mean?
You have an answer for that?
No god can not be anything but that does not mean it can not have different definitions/properties.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

P(a) = X where 0 <= X <= 1 may be valid, but it's also useless.

It doesn't need to have a use. In fact it can't have a use, since you don't know what X is, which was the original point. The logic is meaningless for any conclusions about the existance of God except that logically we don't know what X is

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

The argument about pixies (I don't remember ever actually using the term pixie by the way) is not for the believers, its for the agonostics who claim the only sensible position is to be agnositc about God, while also claiming that being agnositic about other things like dragons and pixies (damn it!) is not sensible. That doesn't make sense.

The logic used to justify the agnostic position holds exactly the same for falling dragons and invisiable unicorns.

Well now you are into a totally different argument.

If you believe God might be real because you can't explain away some of the things that people claim to have experienced, that is fair enough.

You miss my point, grasshopper. It doesn't matter whether I can or can't explain away some of the things that people claim to have experienced. The point is that they are evidentiary claims. We have an alternate thesis which explains them (or explains them away, as you put it), but that merely makes ours one of the competing explanations.

If there are competing explanations, then we have to make a judgement between them.

The existence of dragons is not put forward as an explanation for anything much, whereas God is. It is put forward as a total explanation, since it covers everything that is, or will be, or has been - all things arise from God.

Can we disprove that explanation in toto? No. Can we therefore dismiss it? Only if there is no evidence. Is there evidence? You and I don't think so, but believers do. Are they deluding themselves? You and I think so, they do not. Are we right, or are they right? Neither can be proven, either from first principles by logic, or through empirical tests.

It's easy enough to hammer Creationists when they try to claim scientific validity for the Bible, but it is not possible to disprove God.

Theism and atheism remain viable alternative explanations of the world. One is based in Mythos, and one on Logos. Neither can even touch the other, let alone disprove the other. All that can be disproved are specific notions of God.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

It doesn't need to have a use. In fact it can't have a use, since you don't know what X is, which was the original point. The logic is meaningless for any conclusions about the existance of God except that logically we don't know what X is

....which supports the agnostic position (OP). QED.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

If "God" can mean anything this discussion is going to go no where very fast.

Can my stapler beside me on my desk be a god because I say so? If so I've just proved beyond all doubt gods exit. All hail me. Where is my nodel prize.

Would everyone like to see my god/stapler ....

Sure. Definition, then, please!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

What is your definition of god then?

These seem pretty standard

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/god
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deity

Its not my definition, its the English definition. My definition is as irrelivent as yours.

I think the Oxford English dictionary is the offical dictionary of the English State, so I'd imagine their is pretty offical, but I don't have a copy and you have to subscribe.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Under clause five, I deem myself a god.

Thats kinda of the point, if words can mean anything you like then communication begins to break down.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Take the originatorof the universe bit of the definition, something created the universe of something didn't.

If something created to universe that doesn't mean they are a god.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Taking the originator of the universe definition, there are only two outcomes, something created the universe, something did not.

Either way you can't infer that it was a God, unless it fits the definition of a God. If I created a universe in a particle accelerator tomorrow that would be cool, but I'm not a god.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Because that is one of the definitions.

What makes it a god?

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Then what does god mean?
You have an answer for that?

In English the word "god" means an all powerful being who was the creator and is responsible for, all creation. Clearly my stabler isn't a God.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

No god can not be anything but that does not mean it can not have different definitions/properties.

Then which definitions are valid and which aren't?

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

....which supports the agnostic position (OP). QED.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I never said it didn't.

It also supports the "a dragon might fall on your head at 2.43 tomorrow morning" position.

Tar.Aldarion

Wicknight wrote:

These seem pretty standard

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/god
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deity

Its not my definition, its the English definition. My definition is as irrelivent as yours.

I think the Oxford English dictionary is the offical dictionary of the English State, so I'd imagine their is pretty offical, but I don't have a copy and you have to subscribe.

You see, even in official literature, there is much more than one definition, everything I would call a god falls under these definitions, respectively.

Thats kinda of the point, if words can mean anything you like then communication begins to break down.

And my point is, that is a valid definition of a god from a dictionary.

If something created to universe that doesn't mean they are a god.

Definition of god: the creator of the universe.
I think you will find it does, under the English languages definitions of a god.

Either way you can't infer that it was a God, unless it fits the definition of a God. If I created a universe in a particle accelerator tomorrow that would be cool, but I'm not a god.

I can infer it is a god, even under your stipulations, as it is a definition the in English language.

What makes it a god?

The definition in my dictionary, which seems to be what matters right?

In English the word "god" means an all powerful being who was the creator and is responsible for, all creation. Clearly my stabler isn't a God.

It also means more, and also a variant of what you typed with different wording, that gives different meaning.

Then which definitions are valid and which aren't?

For the sake of making things clear, the ones that are valid are the one's in Dictionaries.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

The point is that they are evidentiary claims.

There are evidentiary claims about dragons and unicorns. Quite a few in fact. Does that increase the chances that you will be hit by one tomorrow?

Scofflaw wrote:

We have an alternate thesis which explains them (or explains them away, as you put it), but that merely makes ours one of the competing explanations.

Thats largely irrelivent. There can be alternative thesis for anything. The drunk guy down the road from me has a quite a few whoppers of alternative thesises, that doesn't make his or mine any more valid or invalid.

Scofflaw wrote:

If there are competing explanations, then we have to make a judgement between them.

True, and I've logically judged that dragons don't exist and that those who claimed to have seen or experienced dragons were mistaken. As I have with gods.

BTW it would be at this point where you would start throwing around the word "faith" ... so using your own logic you don't know a dragon isn't going to fall on your head, but you have faith that that isn't going to happen.

Scofflaw wrote:

The existence of dragons is not put forward as an explanation for anything much, whereas God is. It is put forward as a total explanation, since it covers everything that is, or will be, or has been - all things arise from God.

Again that point is largely irrelevent. If the drunk guy down the road starts claiming that dragons mad the sun does that give more weight to the concept of dragons?

Scofflaw wrote:

Neither can be proven, either from first principles by logic, or through empirical tests.

Exactly the same thing can be said about dragons, or anything.

Scofflaw wrote:

It's easy enough to hammer Creationists when they try to claim scientific validity for the Bible, but it is not possible to disprove God.

Its not, but then techincally its not possible to prove or disprove anything outside of a theoretical framework.

Scofflaw wrote:

All that can be disproved are specific notions of God.

Just as all you can prove is that a dragon is not going to hit you right now according to the light entering your eye balls.

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Definition of god: the creator of the universe.
I think you will find it does, under the English languages definitions of a god.

Where is that from?

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

For the sake of making things clear, the ones that are valid are the one's in Dictionaries.

Fair enough, if there is a dictionary that says

God - creator of the universe

I think that is a pretty silly definition since they could end up creating a universe in a particle accelerator and the scientits wouldn't be gods under any concept of god I'm aware off.

This is all in StarGate, the concept of powerful aliens being considered gods but in fact being false gods ... once again Richard Dean Anderson has shown the way.