God is not complex

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: God is not complex

#101  Postby Rumraket » Jan 04, 2014 6:26 pm

Mick wrote:
Rumraket wrote:lol

just... lol.
see. More of it.

Just pat yourselves on the back, fellas. You all did well. Who needs to "show" you are right when you can just smirk, point and nod at each other--it is soooo much more satisfying, and it provides a good carapace from theists and their "philosophy", since that is really hard to keep up with and stuff, cuz you hafta, like, read.

Brilliant. Dawkins is a bully.

No.

God is a bully. Oh wait, god doesn't actually exist.

Anyone can argue from bare assertion. See? Nothing you said entailed that Dawkins is a bully, so I can only laugh at the statement.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13193
Age: 39

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: God is not complex

#102  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 04, 2014 6:31 pm

Mick wrote:And like Amnivore, Paul, you won't tell us what's wrong with it.

Because it would be a waste of time. It's already been debunked and or refuted, repeatedly.
Most of it's so fallacious it should be obvious.
Not that it stops you from mindlessly regurgitating it ad-nauseam.
Mick wrote: It's a secret, Amiright? You atheists and your secret understandings. So profound.

:roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30590
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#103  Postby Clive Durdle » Jan 05, 2014 1:26 am

According to theism, God is a spiritual substance (a pure spirit or soul). A spiritual substance is spatially unextended, zero-dimensional, and thus it lacks both substantial and spatial parts. That is, it is both mereologically simple and spatially simple. All theologians agree that God does not exist anywhere in space, but they disagree over the question whether he exists in time. If he does, he can be said to have temporal parts at least.


How did people of the medieval period explain physical phenomena, such as eclipses or the distribution of land and water on the globe?

What creatures did they think they might encounter: angels, devils, witches, dogheaded people? This fascinating book explores the ways in which medieval people categorized the world, concentrating on the division between the natural and the supernatural and showing how the idea of the supernatural came to be invented in the Middle Ages.

Robert Bartlett examines how theologians and others sought to draw lines between the natural, the miraculous, the marvelous and the monstrous, and the many conceptual problems they encountered as they did so. The final chapter explores the extraordinary thought-world of Roger Bacon as a case study exemplifying these issues. By recovering the mentalities of medieval writers and thinkers the book raises the critical question of how we deal with beliefs we no longer share.



http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/su ... iddle-ages
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive Durdle
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4812

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#104  Postby Fenrir » Jan 05, 2014 1:34 am

Mick wrote:
Right, by being (identical with) omniscience. Nothing suggests that he is a being in and of itself.


...and then you go off to mass to eat some dead guy's flesh and drink his blood. :dance:
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3486
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#105  Postby Rumraket » Jan 05, 2014 1:36 am

Three persons in one. But not a person, only personal. Christian theism, Feser-thomism brand. Mick's a fan.

:picard:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13193
Age: 39

Print view this post

#106  Postby THWOTH » Jan 05, 2014 1:48 am

Mick wrote:rThe God Delusion didn't attack the belief of the men in the pews alone. It was an assault on theism per se. That is why he attacks some of the classical arguments. Thus, even if he managed to show that the average Joe believes to "silly reasons", it wouldn't matter one bit to the case for theism at large. But if he is going to attack theism, then he needs to take these arguments seriously. He didn't. If I am going to attack Liberalism, I'll go after its founders, not the Liberal voter.

Dawkins is a bully.

TGD was published while Dawkins was the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. It was not only concerned with the pourous arguments in support of mythological claims and assertion, but addressed those argument in order to contrast them with a description of the evidential robustness of the scientic method and its ability to furnish us with verifiable knowledge. In other words, it wasn't all about theists and theism, whatever the theist might think, but about the necessary difference between made up explanations and a scientific understanding of the natural world rooted in observable phenomena.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37101
Age: 55

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#107  Postby Matthew Shute » Jan 05, 2014 2:09 am

Teuton wrote:
Matthew Shute wrote:
Teuton wrote:[T]heologians agree that God does not exist anywhere in space

Is that so? Then I wonder how they'd reconcile the above with a belief in omnipresence without adopting a position of theistic idealism/monopsychism (something a million lightyears from Mick's borrowed philosophy and Catholic teaching, for example)?


God cannot consistently be said to be omnipresent in the literal sense that he is personally present everywhere in space, because he is located nowhere. So to say that God is omnipresent can only mean that he notices everything happening in space and is able to exert his divine power everywhere in space. So God's omnipresence is not to be interpreted literally. In this nonliteral sense, you could say e.g. that the Basic Law of Germany is omnipresent in Germany.


It's worth remembering here that Mick vouches for Anselm's ontological argument, that insists God is the greatest conceivable being (Mick later contradicts himself by suggesting that God is not a being, but never mind). If Mick's God cannot be literally omnipresent, then one could conceive of a greater being - a literally omnipresent God. This might not impress the theologians you mentioned, but it ought to impress Mick. He still thinks Anselm's argument demonstrates theism. At least he did when he last managed to ignore everyone in the forum tearing that ontological argument to shreds!
:D
"Change will preserve us. It is the lifeblood of the Isles. It will move mountains! It will mount movements!" - Sheogorath
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 3676
Age: 41

Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: God is not complex

#108  Postby Calilasseia » Jan 05, 2014 2:37 am

Matthew Shute wrote:
Teuton wrote:
Matthew Shute wrote:
Teuton wrote:[T]heologians agree that God does not exist anywhere in space

Is that so? Then I wonder how they'd reconcile the above with a belief in omnipresence without adopting a position of theistic idealism/monopsychism (something a million lightyears from Mick's borrowed philosophy and Catholic teaching, for example)?


God cannot consistently be said to be omnipresent in the literal sense that he is personally present everywhere in space, because he is located nowhere. So to say that God is omnipresent can only mean that he notices everything happening in space and is able to exert his divine power everywhere in space. So God's omnipresence is not to be interpreted literally. In this nonliteral sense, you could say e.g. that the Basic Law of Germany is omnipresent in Germany.


It's worth remembering here that Mick vouches for Anselm's ontological argument, that insists God is the greatest conceivable being (Mick later contradicts himself by suggesting that God is not a being, but never mind). If Mick's God cannot be literally omnipresent, then one could conceive of a greater being - a literally omnipresent God. This might not impress the theologians you mentioned, but it ought to impress Mick. He still thinks Anselm's argument demonstrates theism. At least he did when he last managed to ignore everyone in the forum tearing that ontological argument to shreds!
:D


Which, of course, is exactly the sort of mess that results from treating blind assertions as fact, without bothering to ask simple questions such as "does reality agree with this?". As is all too frequently demonstrated, doing so leads inexorably to thinking that all one needs to do, is exhibit a sufficient level of gymnastic sophistry with respect to the resulting apologetics, and reality will somehow magically rearrange itself to conform thereto. Unfortunately for fans of this, reality doesn't thus magically rearrange itself to conform to said assertions or gymnastic sophistry - reality will give you what it decides to give you, and if that happens to drive a tank battalion through your cherished assertions, tough.

Recognition of this basic fact is the reason that scientific hypotheses, and the theories arising therefrom, are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Because prescriptive assertions have a habit of being given a good kicking by the data. In turn, this is why assertionists have a habit of ignoring the data, or trying to construct yet more assertionist castles in the air in order to try and force-fit the data to their assertions.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22029
Age: 58
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#109  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jan 05, 2014 3:00 am

Anselm's arguments are total bollocks, because they use the trick of labelling things into existence. As if labelling an imagined creature with wings becomes real as soon as it is labelled "fairy". The label is deemed to be powerful magic, the touters obviously hoping we conflate map to terrain.
Anyone can make up an imaginary treasure map, and the popularity children's of pirate novels attests to this.
Science makes up imaginary maps also, but goes the additional step of insuring it is a fair representation of what is known, or could be known.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 65

Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#110  Postby Calilasseia » Jan 05, 2014 3:02 am

Well scientists don't just make up maps for the fun of it. They do so with the intention of testing whether those maps do indeed bear some correspondence to observation, and discard the maps that don't.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22029
Age: 58
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#111  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jan 05, 2014 3:11 am

Calilasseia wrote:Well scientists don't just make up maps for the fun of it. They do so with the intention of testing whether those maps do indeed bear some correspondence to observation, and discard the maps that don't.

Indeed. I was simply pointing out that imagination [of itself] is not bad, but only part of the process of gaining knowledge. Imagination by itself [with no attempt at confirmation] is pointless. That imagination alone can bring solutions is the mental masterbation that Anselm was trying to sell.
:thumbup:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 65

Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#112  Postby Mick » Jan 05, 2014 12:32 pm

Matthew Shute wrote:
Teuton wrote:
Matthew Shute wrote:
Teuton wrote:[T]heologians agree that God does not exist anywhere in space

Is that so? Then I wonder how they'd reconcile the above with a belief in omnipresence without adopting a position of theistic idealism/monopsychism (something a million lightyears from Mick's borrowed philosophy and Catholic teaching, for example)?


God cannot consistently be said to be omnipresent in the literal sense that he is personally present everywhere in space, because he is located nowhere. So to say that God is omnipresent can only mean that he notices everything happening in space and is able to exert his divine power everywhere in space. So God's omnipresence is not to be interpreted literally. In this nonliteral sense, you could say e.g. that the Basic Law of Germany is omnipresent in Germany.


It's worth remembering here that Mick vouches for Anselm's ontological argument, that insists God is the greatest conceivable being (Mick later contradicts himself by suggesting that God is not a being, but never mind). If Mick's God cannot be literally omnipresent, then one could conceive of a greater being - a literally omnipresent God. This might not impress the theologians you mentioned, but it ought to impress Mick. He still thinks Anselm's argument demonstrates theism. At least he did when he last managed to ignore everyone in the forum tearing that ontological argument to shreds!
:D


What i said was that properly speaking, god is not a being. We can use it in the analogous sense, or we can simply understand that the English language is not all too catering to talk about the divine.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#113  Postby Mick » Jan 05, 2014 12:35 pm

Cali is back. Oh, great. Perhaps he can tell us how that one subjunctive conditional presumed the existence of god, or did he hope I forgot about that blunder?
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#114  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 05, 2014 12:42 pm

Mick wrote:Cali is back. Oh, great. Perhaps he can tell us how that one subjunctive conditional presumed the existence of god, or did he hope I forgot about that blunder?

:roll:

A counterfactual conditional, subjunctive conditional, or remote conditional, abbreviated CF, is a conditional (or "if-then") statement indicating what would be the case if its antecedent were true (although it is not true). This is to be contrasted with an indicative conditional, which indicates what is (in fact) the case if its antecedent is (in fact) true (which it may or may not be).


Bolded: in other words begging the question that if-then.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30590
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#115  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 05, 2014 12:44 pm

Mick wrote:
Matthew Shute wrote:
Teuton wrote:
Matthew Shute wrote:
Is that so? Then I wonder how they'd reconcile the above with a belief in omnipresence without adopting a position of theistic idealism/monopsychism (something a million lightyears from Mick's borrowed philosophy and Catholic teaching, for example)?


God cannot consistently be said to be omnipresent in the literal sense that he is personally present everywhere in space, because he is located nowhere. So to say that God is omnipresent can only mean that he notices everything happening in space and is able to exert his divine power everywhere in space. So God's omnipresence is not to be interpreted literally. In this nonliteral sense, you could say e.g. that the Basic Law of Germany is omnipresent in Germany.


It's worth remembering here that Mick vouches for Anselm's ontological argument, that insists God is the greatest conceivable being (Mick later contradicts himself by suggesting that God is not a being, but never mind). If Mick's God cannot be literally omnipresent, then one could conceive of a greater being - a literally omnipresent God. This might not impress the theologians you mentioned, but it ought to impress Mick. He still thinks Anselm's argument demonstrates theism. At least he did when he last managed to ignore everyone in the forum tearing that ontological argument to shreds!
:D


What i said was that properly speaking, god is not a being. We can use it in the analogous sense, or we can simply understand that the English language is not all too catering to talk about the divine.

Humpty-dumptyism at it's finest.
There are no clothes on the emperors body Mick.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30590
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: God is not complex

#116  Postby Nebogipfel » Jan 05, 2014 1:50 pm

Teuton wrote:
God cannot consistently be said to be omnipresent in the literal sense that he is personally present everywhere in space, because he is located nowhere. So to say that God is omnipresent can only mean that he notices everything happening in space and is able to exert his divine power everywhere in space. So God's omnipresence is not to be interpreted literally. In this nonliteral sense, you could say e.g. that the Basic Law of Germany is omnipresent in Germany.


And like the Basic Law of Germany, I strongly suspect God exists only on paper and in humans' heads. ;)
Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion
-- Carl Sagan
User avatar
Nebogipfel
 
Posts: 2085

Country: Netherlands
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#117  Postby Paul » Jan 05, 2014 2:52 pm

Mick wrote:And like Amnivore, Paul, you won't tell us what's wrong with it. It's a secret, Amiright? You atheists and your secret understandings. So profound.

It's no great secret.

One simply has to acknowledge that the the major religions of the world are founded on ancient, ignorant superstitions, and that no amount of mental gymnastics and Humpty Dumpty language can actually resolve the various absurd, inconsistencies and contradictions, the unevidenced claims of some unseen higher power.

One has to ask, if you expect profound, high level philosophy from those who deny the god concept, then why do religions not require the same from all those who accept it? They don't. All they actually require is adherence to the dogma of their human founders and leaders. Religions the world over depend on their sheep having faith, not in god, but in their supposed superiors, the 'great thinkers' at the heads of their religious orders who bamboozle them with theological mumbo jumbo dressed up as deep philosophy.

I didn't bother replying to this last night as I was enjoying watching a documentary about Dave Allen, followed by some highlights from his various tv series.

In the documentary he mentioned his 'education', received from Carmelite nuns, and how they tried instill fear of hell in a young child. He realised that the nuns and priests who were responsible for his education were almost certainly not qualified to call themselves teachers.

from wiki
From school, from the first nun that belted me - people used to think of the nice sweet little ladies … they used to knock the fuck out of you, in the most cruel way that they could. They'd find bits of your body that were vulnerable to intense pain - grabbing you by the ear, or by the nose, and lift you, and say 'Don't cry!' It's very hard not to cry. I mean, not from emotion, but pain. The priests were the same.


Allen's satirising of religious ritual, especially Catholic, throughout each episode caused minor controversy, which coupled with sometimes comparatively frank material, earned the show a risqué reputation. In 1977, the Irish state broadcaster RTÉ placed a de facto ban on Allen.


and you have the gall to call Dawkins a bully!

If the question of god can be easily be settled by philosophy, then why do religions still resort to censorship, intimidation, bullying and threats instead of proper education?
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 62
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#118  Postby Calilasseia » Jan 05, 2014 3:20 pm

Oh yes, it's that tiresome meme again. Namely, the specious portrayal of Dawkins as some sort of fucking Gauleiter, because he dares to tell people to evaluate assertions instead of accepting them uncritically the way supernaturalists do, whilst ignoring the sort of conduct we see from supernaturalists such as that documented above, subjecting children to ruthlessly applied brutality in order to enforce conformity to a doctrine.

Indeed, that's one of the reasons supernaturalists continue to try and pervert the arena of discourse, because they know that in any honest arena of discourse, their assertions and apologetic fabrications stand less chance of being accepted as fact, than I do of being filmed live by CNN in a threesome with Scarlett Johanssen and Anne Hathaway. Once the word starts to spread with respect to the proper treatment of assertions, it's game over. That's why supernaturalists pull these duplicitous fabrications about people like Dawkins out of their rectal passages, because the moment people take his advice and start subjecting assertions to proper scrutiny, the cosy little arrangement involving gilded palaces for men in frocks and funny hats becomes ever more untenable.

Indeed, Aquinas himself let the cat out of the bag with those infamous words of his:

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.


"Conform or else" writ large. Only by such means can supernaturalism persist.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22029
Age: 58
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#119  Postby Teuton » Jan 05, 2014 4:34 pm

Teuton wrote:
God cannot consistently be said to be omnipresent in the literal sense that he is personally present everywhere in space, because he is located nowhere.


And even if he were located in space, being a spatially unextended (= zero-dimensional) entity, he couldn't occupy the whole of space or a region thereof but only one extensionless point of it. So even if God existed in space, he couldn't literally be omnipresent therein like a space-filling force field.
Last edited by Teuton on Jan 05, 2014 4:59 pm, edited 5 times in total.
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
User avatar
Teuton
 
Posts: 5461

Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: God is not complex

#120  Postby Teuton » Jan 05, 2014 4:36 pm

Mick wrote:
What i said was that properly speaking, god is not a being. We can use it in the analogous sense, or we can simply understand that the English language is not all too catering to talk about the divine.


Properly speaking, in the broad sense of the noun "being" (as opposed to the narrow sense = "living being"), everything that is is a being, i.e. an entity. To say otherwise is plainly illogical.
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
User avatar
Teuton
 
Posts: 5461

Germany (de)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest