Arguments about Him- the square circle

skeptic griggsy

God is like a square circle as the ignostic-Ockham thread notes: no there there!:eek:
He cannot be transcendent to Existence as it is everything, and there can be nowhere else whence it comes.:eek:
Cause, event, time and explanation presuppose previous ones, so, perforce, there can be no temporal First Cause as the Kalam requires nor one as Aquinas's explanatory one requires.
For a person's mind to think, she must, perforce, have a brain with nerves, etc. So, He as an disembodied being, cannot think and so, He again cannot be. affirming ignosticism. Two theologians and the Mormons affirm that He doth have a body. Some atheists mistakenly tried to challenge theism with averring if He has a body, then one would be able in principle to find it.:o
Theologians ever try to defend this square circle with begged questions.:o
Why are you an atheist, an agnostic or a theist?

Iwasfrozen

skeptic griggsy wrote: »

God is like a square circle as the ignostic-Ockham thread notes: no there there!:eek:
He cannot be transcendent to Existence as it is everything, and there can be nowhere else whence it comes.:eek:
Cause, event, time and explanation presuppose previous ones, so, perforce, there can be no temporal First Cause as the Kalam requires nor one as Aquinas's explanatory one requires.
For a person's mind to think, she must, perforce, have a brain with nerves, etc. So, He as an disembodied being, cannot think and so, He again cannot be. affirming ignosticism. Two theologians and the Mormons affirm that He doth have a body. Some atheists mistakenly tried to challenge theism with averring if He has a body, then one would be able in principle to find it.:o
Theologians ever try to defend this square circle with begged questions.:o
Why are you an atheist, an agnostic or a theist?

Only a fool would say that God definitely doesn't exist in some form
and only a fool would say that God definitely does exist in some form.

Dave!

Yes

I mean No!

I mean!

Ah sh*t

studiorat

Is there a God? Yes.

Does God Exist? No.

:eek:

fitz0

Am I missing something in regards to the two pictures?

Pompey Magnus

fitz0 wrote: »

Am I missing something in regards to the two pictures?

Seems to be pics of the OP, as for why exactly they are included I don't have a clue.

Zillah

Charco wrote: »

Seems to be pics of the OP, as for why exactly they are included I don't have a clue.

fitz0 wrote: »

Am I missing something in regards to the two pictures?

My understanding is that skeptic griggsy thinks in a fashion atypical to most posters. Neurologically atypical, if you will.

Goduznt Xzst

Well I think the OP, in posting images of himself, is proving he does in fact have a body, and therefore, a physical mind with the ability to think. The square circle reference is highlighting the limits of human definitions and the inherent failing in trying to argue the existence of an inhuman god with human terms (can god make a square circle... etc)

So to postulate that God exists under Descartes statement "Cogito ergo sum" we would first have to define the action and requisites of the thinking process. For a God, we can't, we can only define it for humans as, even if a God did exist, we would merely be speculating on if it thinks and has thoughts in a manner remotely similar to humans.

condra

There's blood coming out my ears.

Valmont

Hmmm... I don't get it. The pictures were funny though.

Flamed Diving

Does the god of the old testament exist? Yes.

Was this universe created by a supernatural, intelligent being? No.

Or something...

pH

Here's a helpful article to assist answering the OP's poll.

The difference between an atheist, an agnostic and a theist can be summarised by their responses to the question: do you have a dog?

The atheist will simply answer, “No”. If you go to his house to search for a dog, you won’t find one. There will be no signs in the house or the yard that there ever was a dog there. None of his relatives or friends will remember having seen a dog there. They’ll ask, “Does he have a dog? How could I not have known?” And they’ll be absolutely right. There are no signs that there could ever have been a dog at the atheist’s house or indeed anywhere where he spends his time. Not at his home, not at his work, nowhere.

The agnostic who thinks that there’s simply insufficient proof for either having or not having a dog will be a great deal less certain.

When asked, she’ll look around her house searching for traces of a dog. When pressed, she’ll say, “Oh, I’ve searched my house, but what’s to say that there’s not a dog in my garage as I’m searching the house, and what’s to say that dog isn’t going to be in my house while I search the garage?”. If asked, “Do you believe you have a dog, despite there being no signs of it?” She’s likely to answer firmly: “There’s simply not enough evidence to support the fact that I don’t own a dog to come to that conclusion.”

Then there’s the agnostic who doesn’t believe that he owns a dog, but is nevertheless not willing to completely rule out the possibility.

When asked, he’ll say, “I have no dog at home, that’s for sure.” Pondering the question further, he’ll say, “But, obviously, I can never be everywhere all at once. So, there must be some small possibility that there’s a dog out there somewhere that’s got a disk on its collar saying I’m the owner. That I don’t know about it isn’t sufficient proof that it doesn’t exist.”

Needless to say, you won’t find traces of a dog at his home either.

Finally, there’s the theist. When asked, she’ll answer an empathic “Yes!” But if you go to her house and search for a dog, you’ll not find a trace of a dog there either. Nowhere is a dog to be found.

Naturally you’ll ask her why she thinks she has a dog when there’s no evidence. You might find relatives and friends who say she has a dog, but who’ve never seen it, heard it, or felt it licking their face.

“It’s a matter of faith,” the theist will proclaim. “I have faith in this (or that) which says so. My friends say so. My parents said so. So who are you to question the fact that I have a dog?”

found here :
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=79223

Flamed Diving

pH wrote: »

Here's a helpful article to assist answering the OP's poll.


found here :
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=79223

Meh.

The Mad Hatter

tms;dr

(Too many smilies; didn't read)

Goduznt Xzst

pH wrote: »

Here's a helpful article to assist answering the OP's poll.

I don't think you understand the motivation and context behind the poll. It has less to do with what the definition of the camps imagine and more to do with the absurdity of humans even asking the question and claiming to have an opinion.

To even get to the point where one would be able to comment on how you define what existence is for a deity requires that individual to make huge leaps in understanding regarding deific existence itself.

Zombrex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Meh.

Burn Him!!

skeptic griggsy

The late Dr. Mortimer Adler became Roman Catholic shortly before his demise. He had called himself a pagan in that he was a theist but didn't belong to any sect.
To quote him from "How to Think about God," on the First Cause : To say that that there must be some first cause- some uncaused cause in the series of causes and effects- is to assume that time is infinite and change, together with its causation , began with the operation of that first cause. This is the same as saying the cosmos had a beginning. As we have seen, we must avoid that assumption because it begs the question.
........
It is not repugnant to reason to assume that the cosmos has always existed, that there is no beginning to change or causation, that time is infinite, and that there is an infintie series of causes and effects. In such a series there can be no first cause."
Now that sense of first cause isn't temporal but hierarchical.
" To regard them [natural causes as secondary or tertiary, S.G.] is tantamount to saying that the consideration of their action does not suffice to explain the natural effects we observe."
He allows, whilst I don't , that God still might operate without our knowing so on another basis.
" We do not need to supplement science with theology; we do not need to refer to a first or principal cause in order to remedy the deficiency of natural causes as explanatory of natural effects."
I add that those are the only kinds of effects.
Here Adler is a Trojan horse for us naturalists, as my friend Dr. Graham Robert Oppy emailed me about Dr. John Hick. Adler did however find evidential support for Him .I don't find that support however as evidential.
So, Adler agrees with Dr. Peter A. Angeles about time etc. being eternal . And he rightly dismisses two of Aquinas's five arguments for Him whilst wrongly affirming the contingency argument amongst the cosmological ones. So, Aquinas's first cause as motion or explanation fails as then does Leibniz's sufficient reason, but as I argue @ the presumptions for that more abundant life, in line with Adler, natural causes themselves are the sufficient reason.

Funsterdelux

pineapple

Panrich

Does 'god' exist?

1: God exists and is 'present' within our universe. In this case it should be possible to prove his existence.
2: God exists outside our universe.
2(a): He interacts with our universe. It should be possible to prove his existence.
2(b): He doesn't interact with our universe. Meh!. Who cares if he exists as it cannot be proven and has no bearing on anything that we can know.
3: he doesn't exist. we can't prove a negative.

I vote 3

Turtwig

Panrich wrote: »

Does 'god' exist?

1: God exists and is 'present' within our universe. In this case it should be possible to prove his existence.
2: God exists outside our universe.
2(a): He interacts with our universe. It should be possible to prove his existence.
2(b): He doesn't interact with our universe. Meh!. Who cares if he exists as it cannot be proven and has no bearing on anything that we can know.
3: he doesn't exist. we can't prove a negative.

I vote 3

It's not even about proving that he exists, there is simply no evidence whatsoever for Him/Her/It.

Valmont

Damn griggsy you must have been the coolest cat in school with that hair style.

Antbert

I refuse to believe I'm stupid for not understanding the question. But even still, if you crave my answer (I'm sure you do) could you write it so that a stupid person could understand?

Antbert

Panrich wrote: »

2(b): He doesn't interact with our universe. Meh!. Who cares if he exists as it cannot be proven and has no bearing on anything that we can know.

Dragon in Garage time: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

Max Power1

epic attachment fail OP

I voted for the no side (atheist)... i swear that wasnt a lisbon reference!:pac:

Sam Vimes

Max power your sig is pretty funny. You don't think fear and lies won it last time no? Everyone had a rational, well thought out treaty based reason for their no vote did they?

eoin5

Panrich wrote: »

Does 'god' exist?

1: God exists and is 'present' within our universe. In this case it should be possible to prove his existence.
2: God exists outside our universe.
2(a): He interacts with our universe. It should be possible to prove his existence.
2(b): He doesn't interact with our universe. Meh!. Who cares if he exists as it cannot be proven and has no bearing on anything that we can know.
3: he doesn't exist. we can't prove a negative.

I vote 3

In the real world there is no such thing as definitive proof. Even if something seemed to perform all these miracles how do you know its not just aliens or youre not dreaming or theres not something in the water? It all comes down to belief in the end. These kind of logic arguments are useful but fundamentally flawed really.

Sam Vimes

eoin5 wrote: »

In the real world there is no such thing as definitive proof. Even if something seemed to perform all these miracles how do you know its not just aliens or youre not dreaming or theres not something in the water? It all comes down to belief in the end. These kind of logic arguments are useful but fundamentally flawed really.

That's why we have science

You can fool someone's eyes but it's an awful lot harder to fool measuring equipment

bnt

The poll needs one more option: "highly improbable". Just "maybe" or "possible" doesn't give any sense of the odds involved, and can lead people to the fallacy that it's a 50/50 split. :cool:

Gambler

Does god exist? I can't say for definite so - Maybe?
Do I believe that god Exists? No

eoin5

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's why we have science

You can fool someone's eyes but it's an awful lot harder to fool measuring equipment

Yea, and a peer reviewed new testament would just read : "... and Jesus threw his eyes up to heaven and shrugged".

skeptic griggsy

eoin5, yes, we skeptics insist on fallibilism- we can be wrong!
No, it is hardly a matter of belief; we atheists have unbelief. We naturalists and rationalists have the belief in the presumptions I delineate.
We realize that one should affirm from a background of the conservation of knowledge rather than from one of incredulity. One uses the fallacy of equivocation in making trust in our provisional science with faith.
bnt, yes.
Gambler, fine. Huxleyan agnsosticism [ skepticism] is epistemological whilst atheism is metaphysical. So I 'm both, although a hard, new atheist and ignostic!
I know that there are agnostic theists who don't know HIs attributes or whatever.