John P. M. wrote:Discussing theist arguments is like a never ending game of Whac-A-Mole. Not sure I have the stamina for it.

I think of it more like a game of Mornington Crescent - except for the clear-cut rules of Mornington Crescent, of course.

Have you noticed that port has been introduced into the game?

I have that, Regina, I have that. I was sorely tempted but, nooo, not now, not tonight, it's water m'lass, water for this old sinner, water and a vegetarian meal ... <burp> but a rather GOOD one.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mick wrote:
Any proof, mathematical or otherwise, depends on your acceptance of definitions, axioms, etc.

Welll, my goodness, Mick. Aren't you just the epitome of didacticism! You haven't presented any definitions and axioms about god. You specialise in citing other people's argument. But you're hell on wheels with the freshman philosophy stuff.

Yes, Mick does remind me of the neophyte coffee shop/pub philosophers my first year at college. So exited about what they thought they had learned in philosophy 101 when they had missed the point by a considerable margin.

Maybe it is Mick that needs to take a few more classes in the area of philosophy and concentrate more on what philosophy is rather than what some philosophers have written and or said?

Philosophy performed by some people much too often degenerates into the art of the least savory aspects of rhetoric. It's almost like talking just to hear the sound of their own voice.

Theophilosophy is redolent of picking and choosing which philosophers to cite and quote in order to support claims/assertions. Anyone with enough time on their hands can do that. It is not enough to cite a philosopher and or quote him/her. You have to go beyond that and explain why this philosopher is correct in their opinion and why it supports your argument.

One of my favorite quotes is "There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it." It's from Cicero, a philosopher.

Mick wrote:

Fallible wrote:It's amazing really how suddenly someone needs to defend his thought, needs to support it, to give reasons. I take it from this post that you're now going to stop crapping out unsupported bullshit such as 'god is goodness itself' and then when asked to support it failing to do so. We can but hope, anyway.

It's not unsupported bullshit, Fallible. Aquinas and other classical theists have argued for it a long time ago. If youre ignorant of these arguments, then that's your failing.

And that is yet more of what I was referring to. Your idea of 'supported' is apparently 'Aquinas and other classical theists have argued it for a long time'. That's not what anyone but you calls 'supported'. Fail.

Mick wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

You're essentially telling us to refer to Aquinas, whether or not Aquinas managed to support his argument. We don't have to argue with a dead guy if we can argue with you. The effect is the same, either way.

No, now youre confusing things. The topic was supporting a proposition rather than an argument, namely the proposition that 'God is goodness itself'. If you think his support for this proposition fails, then so be it. But let's not act like theists have not given reason to accept it, for they have. You'd just reject it.

No, now you are confusing things. The topic was you hypocritically offering unsupported wibblings such as 'god is goodness itself' while criticising others for not supporting their proposition. Let's not act like you've given reasons to accept it, for you haven't. You'd just deny it.

Mick wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Whoosh. That's the sound of your missing my point, which is that arguing with you is not dissimilar to arguing with a dead guy. You insist that because an argument is on the books, one must engage with it.

No, it's not that you must engage with it. It's just that you shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist. It's there. If you want to learn about the reason, then read it. Learn about classical theism and why such theists hold that God is goodness itself. But let's just stop pretending as if the case hasn't been proposed, for such behavior is either dishonest or ignorant.

More of the same.

amkerman wrote:Yes. I believe the two concepts are wholly congruent. Reality=God. [etc]

Thanks, now I know you have nothing interesting to say on the subject. Whacking two terms together and reiteratively calling them equivalent is neither a truth nor an argument.

If you don't believe reality god exists, then I suppose you are atheistic when it comes to "my" God reality as well.

The change works just as well, and yes, I see no evidence or argument for your version of reality-equated-to-god (or g-e-t-r).

Whether or not God exists I don't think is open for debate.

This relates solely to your idiosyncratic definition and has nothing to do with reality; you know, the real sort.

Xeno wrote:

amkerman wrote:Yes. I believe the two concepts are wholly congruent. Reality=God. [etc]

Thanks, now I know you have nothing interesting to say on the subject. Whacking two terms together and reiteratively calling them equivalent is neither a truth nor an argument.

If you don't believe reality god exists, then I suppose you are atheistic when it comes to "my" God reality as well.

The change works just as well, and yes, I see no evidence or argument for your version of reality-equated-to-god (or g-e-t-r).

Whether or not God exists I don't think is open for debate.

This relates solely to your idiosyncratic definition and has nothing to do with reality; you know, the real sort.

Quote mining is fun...

Xeno wrote:

amkerman wrote:Yes. I believe the two concepts are wholly congruent. Reality=God. [etc]

Thanks, now I know you have nothing interesting to say on the subject. Whacking two terms together and reiteratively calling them equivalent is neither a truth nor an argument.

I wasn't making an argument...

If you don't believe reality god exists, then I suppose you are atheistic when it comes to "my" God reality as well.

The change works just as well, and yes, I see no evidence or argument for your version of reality-equated-to-god (or g-e-t-r).

what argument?

Whether or not God exists I don't think is open for debate.

This relates solely to your idiosyncratic definition and has nothing to do with reality; you know, the real sort.

[/quote]

So what is the real nature of reality? You know, the real sort...

Mick wrote:

Xeno wrote:You appear to be trying to turn the comment to individual knowledge where I have always been careful to discuss corroborative evidence. You offer the old uncertainty schtick whereas you live in the real world, using a computer, not walking in front of busses, that sort of thing. You probably even imagine your god made the world before last week. Do you agree that an individual has no guarantee of successful knowledge from introspection alone?

Yes, I do believe these things, though I'm something of a moderate skeptic, just like Hume. We believe these things, and justifiably so (Hume didn't think we had much choice in that matter) though proving them is a lost cause.

[my bold] How interesting, when we have this

Mick wrote:

Xeno wrote: Clearly, I granted that an individual has no guarantee of successful knowledge from introspection alone. You agree.

I never agreed to this.

Make up your mind, Mick. Oh, that's right, that is what you do as you go along.

Meanwhile, you keep right on avoiding the point to which you have already agreed:

Xeno wrote:

Mick wrote:

Xeno wrote:Therefore, to observers insistence on truth without corroboration and contrary to evidence suggests lying or delusion, and without evidence there is nothing you can do to gainsay it, any more than can those who happen to hold a different god in the same esteem as you hold yours.

You pulled this conclusion out of your ass.

If that is how you wish to describe your post from which I pulled it, you are welcome (with my emphasis again):

Mick wrote:

Xeno wrote:
How do you distinguish true "private evidence" from (a) falsehood, and (b) delusion?

If two people have different "private evidence" how do you determine which of them (if either) is correct?

Objectively?. I dont know. Craigs point doesnt concern it.

You have said, and I will repeat it from time to time using this reference, that you do not know the answer to those questions, nor how to resolve them. You would have no basis for distinguishing differing "private evidence" between any two people, their personal beliefs untrammelled. You said it.

Keep waggling those philosophophosicals, Mick, if it makes you feel better about believing unsustainable moral bullshit.

I gather you are happy now if I do not fully quote your earlier passage? I would do it if you like because it makes no difference to the nonsense. I merely isolated the key portions for clarity. If it was not an argument, I accept that as true. What then remains is not true, useful or otherwise sensible, except to the extent it helps you to sleep at night.

amkerman wrote:So what is the real nature of reality? You know, the real sort...

Like most people's without making random assignments of it to personal inventions as if it made sense.

Xeno wrote:I gather you are happy now if I do not fully quote your earlier passage? I would do it if you like because it makes no difference to the nonsense. I merely isolated the key portions for clarity. If it was not an argument, I accept that as true. What then remains is not true, useful or otherwise sensible, except to the extent it helps you to sleep at night.

If you thought my initial post which prompted a response was an argument, if you wanted to refute it or attack me you should have responded to everything I said instead of picking certain lines which were the easiest for you to distort and then dismiss.

You "isolated the key portions"? Key to what? Your attempt to obfuscate what I was saying?

I gave the definition of reality and wrote about a paragraph about why reality was omnipotent, infallible, indivisible, omnipresent, and responsible for the creation of everything that exists... And you hand-waved it away and stated that i gave no reasons for equivocating the terms reality and God...

Typical and expected.

amkerman wrote:So what is the real nature of reality? You know, the real sort...

Like most people's without making random assignments of it to personal inventions as if it made sense.

[/quote]

Huh?

The nature of reality is "like most people's without making random assignments of it to personal inventions as if it made sense""?!?!!?

What the fuck does that even mean?

Do most people live in one reality and others in another?
How many realities are there?
Is reality real?
Is one of the realities that most people live in real and the other realities not?
If not all of them are real why do you consider them reality?
Does reality make random assignments of it to personal inventions as if it made sense? what does that mean, anyways?


I didn't ask for a definition, which you nevertheless fail to provide. I asked for it's nature. But, considering you are obviously not prepared to actually discuss this topic in an intelligible fashion, and would rather engage in nay-saying and hand-waving, the definition of reality that you use will suffice.

Or is you answering my straight forward questions too much to ask. I honestly won't be surprised if it is. How dare I.

It appears to be a simple problem. We contend that when theists say things like "God is godness itelf", it is a device to unbuckle atheist arguments from reality as in:

"We cannot know what is good by our mere human means, and cannot stand in judgment of what God chooses to do." The thing that theists cannot seem to recognize is that "God is goodness itself" is a description of the character whose existence remains in question.

The way the statement should be phrased is "A god as we understand it would have to represent goodness itself." To this we all generally agree. That is where the problem arises, because it is at this point that we begin comparing God's hypothetical attributes to contradictory states of the world. To escape from this comparison by challenging our perception of reality is not an argument because it undermines one's ability to argue at all.

"God ought to be good, so why does he suck at being good so badly."

@amkerman, no need to get your knickers in a knot. Allow me to quote and respond to your original post in its entirety:

amkerman wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
So you call reality; god? Else I don't see the point of this comment.

Yes. I believe the two concepts are wholly congruent. Reality=God.

And there you said it. Reality = god. Presumably as opposed to one or the other being an invisible pink penguin-fucking unicorn. Sticking the two terms together is meaningless unless you have some cogent argument to do so and evidence therefor.

Reality: That which is neither derivative (not created) nor dependent (exists unto itself), but exists necessarity (It exists).- Merriam Webster.

Thank you, Merriam Webster.

Nothing is greater than it,

In what sense "greater"? If you simply mean it is the set of all things then this is a trivial comment. If you have some other comparison then you need something else with which to compare, which is contrary to your own supposed position.

everything that is exists within it, nothing exists besides it (supreme).

Firstly, how do you know nothing exists beside it, or are you simply encompassing anything else into it by definition? In the first case to say "supreme" would be unfounded and in the second case it would be a trivial and meaningless statement.

it cannot be measured, proven, or contradicted (infallible).

That is not a definition of infallible. Have you checked back with Merriam Webster recently? You are simply making shit up for your convenience.

It is indivisible (one).

How do you know? For that matter, what is the meaning or even the semantic relevance of "indivisible" in this context?

Through it ALL things are created and ALL things are possible (omnipotent).

Obvious equivocation over the words "Through it" and therefore fallacious or meaningless.

It is all places at all times (omnipresent).

Well, fuck a duck, you don't mean to say that the universe is still here today, like it was yesterday?
If it is the set of all things then it is the set of all things. Philosophers will be wetting themselves at your insight.

amkerman wrote:

Eshuis wrote:The fact that the idea of gods exists does not prove any god exists.

I am not talking about a physical "thing". Physical things exist in reality, they are not reality. A person, a chair, a computer, an alien, A being with immense power that has the ability to form a universe or worlds, etc, are not reality. They are things that exist within time and space (the constructs that I believe are necessary for a physical things to exist, which exist within reality)

If it is not reality itself, but exists within reality, it is not supreme, and therefore, not God.

so gods, i.e. Zeus, Odin, anything that was created, are not God. If they exist, which I don't think they do, they too exist within reality, exist within God. I am wholly skeptical when it comes to the physical existence of things within reality.

I only believe in one God. Most atheists understand that God as reality. Christians understand that God as God, muslims as Allah, Jews as Yahweh, etc. It is not God that changes, it is peoples understanding of God.

If you don't believe reality exists, then I suppose you are atheistic when it comes to "my" God as well.

As I commented already, I can safely disregard this assertion of equivalence over your personal definitions of reality and god. You use the terms interchangeably, begging the question.

Whether or not God exists I don't think is open for debate.

I agree, fallibly, in the negative. You have not even started to make a case. Did you say you were not making an argument? I agree. If this leaves you with blind assertions then you are welcome. I have already pointed this out but you did not like it then and I doubt you will now.

Obviously reality(God) exists. Furthermore, I think we can all agree that the attributes I have listed above: infallibility, omnipresence, omnipotence, indivisibility, supremacy, and existing as the vehicle for all creation are qualities that are attributable to reality (God).

No, your personal definition of god as being your idea of reality, or of reality as being your idea of god, is blind assertion completely unsupported by argument of any description, although you seem fond of tossing in terms which you redefine to say what you first thought. Obviously, this is not argument or evidence. It is wibbling.

What is left to discuss is whether another quality attributable to reality is consciousness.

I am certain most atheists will not budge on their position that consciousness is merely an emergent function of complex systems, but that belief is logically incoherent if one maintains that an objective reality actually exists. A belief that consciousness is a primary quality of reality is a requisite for a belief in an objective reality of ANY sort, including physical reality. It is not just some theists who blindly believe, I don't think. It is also all atheists.

But in the end, it all boils down to faith.

I will leave you with this:

All experience is rooted in consciousness.

I have not taken up this discussion. Other people obviously have done so in the past. I will leave you to them in that regard.

Happy now, amkerman?

Xeno wrote:
Make up your mind, Mick. Oh, that's right, that is what you do as you go along.

There's no inconsistency: Introspection alone can give you knowledge regarding, say, how you feel at the present moment, or perhaps even something like the cogito. This is entirely compatible with not being able to prove empirical claims such as those in question. Knowing is quite different from showing.

Mick wrote:

Xeno wrote:
Make up your mind, Mick. Oh, that's right, that is what you do as you go along.

There's no inconsistency: Introspection alone can give you knowledge regarding, say, how you feel at the present moment, or perhaps even something like the cogito. This is entirely compatible with not being able to prove empirical claims such as those in question. Knowing is quite different from showing.

Tripe, Mick. Here are the two statements bolding the relevant common part.

Xeno wrote: I granted that an individual has no guarantee of successful knowledge from introspection alone. You agree.

Xeno wrote:Do you agree that an individual has no guarantee of successful knowledge from introspection alone?

You disagreed with the first and agreed with the second.

Make something else up.

By the way, your attempt to divorce "knowing from showing" collapses at the point where you agree you are unable to say whether you or a believer in any other god is right, except that you think you are right, just like they do, and so on, neither of you bringing anything more substantive to the table. It is demonstrable that floors support you when you get out of bed in the morning. Your god belief remains personal wibble of dubious morality and zero explanatory power.

To be fair, Mick, I was surprised that anyone who had undertaken Philosophy 101, as you appear to have done, would have disagreed the first time, which is why I waited to ask you exactly the same thing a second time.

My conclusion is that you want to be seen to answer plausibly rather than worrying too much about relevance or consistency.

It seems like a catholic version of "teach the controversy" where it is important to deter at least some believers from departing the fold, and ceasing their monetary and political contributions, if only you can give them an idea that god-belief and religion might not necessarily be as absurd as they are.

Agrippina wrote:So I disappear for a few hours to get some sleep and come back to find, god = reality, and Mick still making word-salad pseudo philosophical arguments, nothing new, OK, I'll be back later.

It's more than just saying god = reality, he supports it by showing us a definition of reality, waves his hands and then says god = reality. I think you'll find the latter to be much more satisfying philosophically.