I know people are probably waiting to see what I say about the last few pages. Surprisingly: Not much.
After my clarification, Highroller and Elvish Crack Piper both seem to understand my beliefs. They just seem to be debating how to label them. I'd rather them duke it out, since I would find their conclusions to be much more objective than any I would make about myself.
Case in point, I think they had more insight to parts of my beliefs than I did myself. I was thinking I was a "3" on Dawkins' Spectrum of theistic probability, since I much prefer the Deist interpretation over the Atheistic one. But, they both correctly pointed out -despite my preference- I wasn't giving either one a "better chance" than the other. Thus, for the Deist God (and the Deist God only as HR and ECP pointed out) I would be a "4." I also think ECP's commentary about what he perceives to be a visceral reaction to the label "atheist" is likely correct, in that I do believe have a slight one. I don't think it's affecting my judgement, but I also understand cognitive biases slip past our persecution. So, it's too meta for me to comment on objectively.
Related to that, I could go back to my argument in post #82 and rework it to be a "3" on Dawkins' Spectrum of theistic probability. I could point out every universe beginning we've observed has been of a simulated one(and they're lots and lots of them). So -statistically- we should give more probability to this universe being simulated (and -thus- being created for a reason) than not. However, there are two reasons I'm not sure I have the will to do that.
1) It would be a clear Goal Post Shift. For obvious reasons, I'd rather avoid that.
2) Because, while it is true we have mounds of examples for simulated universes and none for natural universes, none of the simulated universes are as complicated (large) as this one. Theoretically, we will soon be able to make simulated universes like this one. However, theoretically every black hole contains a natural universe. So, if we need to go into the realm of theory, we now don't have many more examples of simulated universes than natural ones.
So, I will stick with the statements I made in post #82 and let Highroller and Elvish Crack Piper decide what that makes me. I believe their judgment on what I am will be more objective than anything I could come up with. I don't believe people can be very objective about themselves (even though I try and try to be just that.)
Silly Aside:
Zezzites are -in fact- fictional aliens. Here's one wearing a green jump suit. Without googling to see, do you think the average one does?
Atheists are defined by DISBELIEF in deities. Disbelief. Whether they be gnostic or agnostic atheists, they are still atheists, the core of atheism being the disbelief in deities.
Taylor neither believes nor disbelieves in God. Ergo, he is not an atheist.
See, this is the problem with what you're doing: you're trying to lump someone as an atheist because he does not believe in a deity of any kind. But absence of belief =/= the presence of disbelief.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
While Taylor doesn't reject belief in the existence of deities, he does have the absence of belief and that would make him an atheist. Being unsure is not belief and that makes all agnostics - atheists.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
While Taylor doesn't reject belief in the existence of deities, he does have the absence of belief and that would make him an atheist. Being unsure is not belief and that makes all agnostics - atheists.
Incorrect. One can be agnostic and not atheist.
I will agree that atheism is "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." However, Taylor (presumably) does not reject the existence of deities. Ergo, he is not atheist.
After my clarification, Highroller and Elvish Crack Piper both seem to understand my beliefs. They just seem to be debating how to label them. I'd rather them duke it out, since I would find their conclusions to be much more objective than any I would make about myself.
... Taylor, have you read this last page? ECP and I disagree on each others' understanding of your beliefs. How can you come in here and say we both understand your beliefs if our understanding of your beliefs not only differs but is the point of contention?
EDIT: You know what? No. I'm done. I've lost all interest in this line of discussion.
Atheists are defined by DISBELIEF in deities. Disbelief. Whether they be gnostic or agnostic atheists, they are still atheists, the core of atheism being the disbelief in deities.
Taylor neither believes nor disbelieves in God. Ergo, he is not an atheist.
See, this is the problem with what you're doing: you're trying to lump someone as an atheist because he does not believe in a deity of any kind. But absence of belief =/= the presence of disbelief.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
While Taylor doesn't reject belief in the existence of deities, he does have the absence of belief and that would make him an atheist. Being unsure is not belief and that makes all agnostics - atheists.
There is not a single, "perfect" definition of Atheism. Even the source you cite describes a broad meaning and a narrow meaning. For the purposes of this debate, it's more useful to go with the narrower definition that permits us to talk about differences between agnosticism and atheism.
It reminds me of a famous old Supreme Court case in which the Court was asked to determine whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit for the purpose of import tariffs. The Court recognized that scientists taxonomically classify the tomato as a fruit, but held that the tariff laws care about the tomato's culinary use not it's scientific classification, making it legally a vegetable. Did the Court get the decision wrong? I would say no; they recognized that the fruit/vegetable distinction has different meanings in different contexts. It's the same with the definition of atheism - the precise meaning of the term will vary depending on what we're talking about.
[... Taylor, have you read this last page? ECP and I disagree on each others' understanding of your beliefs. How can you come in here and say we both understand your beliefs if our understanding of your beliefs not only differs but is the point of contention?
I don't know what to tell you. Based on my reading, your both are correct about the substance of my beliefs. As in, you both understand what my beliefs are. The disagreement--based on my reading--is over what to CALL that. As in, what label is appropriate.
I am standing by post #82 for the reasons in post #106. Miraculously, no one seemed to have misinterpreted post #82.
No. All one needs to be atheist is a lack of belief in a deity, that makes all agnostics atheist.
Quote from Highroller »
I will agree that atheism is "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." However, Taylor (presumably) does not reject the existence of deities. Ergo, he is not atheist
It doesn't have to be just a rejection of belief in deities. However...
Quote from bitterroot »
There is not a single, "perfect" definition of Atheism. Even the source you cite describes a broad meaning and a narrow meaning. For the purposes of this debate, it's more useful to go with the narrower definition that permits us to talk about differences between agnosticism and atheism.
I agree, but this is more an off topic semantics thing. For purposes of this discussion, it would be more helpful to use 'agnostic' to note that Taylor sits more in the middle than leaning on either side.
Taylor, are you equally ambivalent towards the gods Yahweh, Allah, and Thor or the ideas of a divine Buddha or Brahmin as you are to the deist or kickstarter gods that we, by definition, have no way to be conclusive towards?
Taylor, are you equally ambivalent towards the gods Yahweh, Allah, and Thor or the ideas of a divine Buddha or Brahmin as you are to the deist or kickstarter gods that we, by definition, have no way to be conclusive towards?
No, I am not. As said before, just the "kickstarter" god, as you put it.
EDIT: You know what? No. I'm done. I've lost all interest in this line of discussion.
Sorry, to hear that. I found your argument more reasonable. You only have to be theistic towards the Christian God to be Christian. Why would you have to agnostic toward more than one God to be agnostic?
Thanks. I knew this, I could tell from 82, but wanted it to be explicit.
I have a complete reply written to highroller, but he seems to want you in the straight agnostic category and I believe this is due to him misunderstanding which gods you are agnostic towards and which ones you aren't. On bus, will write more later
First an apology, sorry Taylor. It seems I have mistaken you for someone else that was a deist that I debated here around a year or so ago. Anyway, I was wrong.
Quote from Taylor » »
No, I am not. As said before, just the "kickstarter" god, as you put it.
Suppose this kick starter did god exist, what would be the nature of this kick starter god?
I'm guessing, acknowledging I'm guessing, and not going any further down this speculative path.
But anyway...
By asking me this, you(FoxBlade) are essentially asking me to speculate about things BEFORE 'time equals zero.' Since the very statement "BEFORE 'time equals zero'" is nonsensical, I'm not really sure how you expect me to answer.
Also, I wasn't aware there were very many other Deist around here. You sure it wasn't me? I used to go by the name of "SoronTheBeast," but I don't like to talk about that.
I can't check right now, I am on the phone. But my question is indeed asking you to speculate. I don't think time matters, unless you think it does when you describe it. Its not nonsensical even if time were zero, because perhaps the nature of god is outside of time or exists in all time simultaneously.
I am asking you to share your ideas. Everything is on the table in terms of possibilities.
How could time NOT matter?
Talking about something "before" time starts or "outside" of space is -as far as I can tell- a complete contradiction. Think about it. Space is all locations, so you'd be saying this something is "not located in any possible location" which doesn't make sense. Time is all whens, so you'd be saying this something is "happening before things started happening" which doesn't make sense to me either.
Anyway, the concept is so alien I can't even begin to imagine what it might be; it could be anything or nothing or both simultaneously. As far as I can tell you're essentially asking me to break the Law of Thought.
Sorry, to hear that. I found your argument more reasonable. You only have to be theistic towards the Christian God to be Christian. Why would you have to agnostic toward more than one God to be agnostic?
Because being uncertain to the specific type of god that is being talked about, the unknowable types, and not believing in the rest is really similar, if not functionally identical, to some formulations of atheism. Specifically Agnostic/Weak/Whatever atheism. I do not claim to be able to disprove all kinds of gods or the concept in general or whatever. I don't believe in any particular gods and I don't believe there exists evidence to justify a positive belief in one.
You don't believe in any particular gods, actively disbelieving in all of them except the deist one. Regarding the deist/kickstarter one you take a true agnostic stance towards it on the basis of a lack of information which runs afoul of Russel's Teapot, but whatever. The comments about equiprobable are a whole nother discussion. You say you like the idea more of deism than atheism and say you lean towards it, but admit you don't actually know.
Or, put conversationally, here is a simple way you could tell a random person at a coffeeshop if they asked you what you believe:
Taylor: "Well, I'm not religious, but there might be a god. I just don't think any of the world religions have it right and, at best, a deist/kickstarter god might exist"
I, too, will freely admit that that kind of god might exist. I think most atheists, particularly ones here, will admit that it is, technically, a possibility (we don't believe in it because there isn't exactly anything approaching evidence to point us in that direction), but a possibility nonetheless.
Aside from the fact that we are talking about you, personally, how does the person, described basically as "an irreligious person who thinks, at most, some sort of kickstarter god might exist" is best categorized as? As much as boxes and pidgeonholes are annoying, its become the crux of the issue and, well, assuming that you don't worship this deist thing or actually do anything with it, I'm pretty confident at putting you in the irreligious box and so "an irreligious person who thinks, at most, some sort of kickstarter god might exist" seems to be a pretty good, albeit colloquial, way of describing you
The question then is does "an irreligious person who thinks, at most, some sort of kickstarter god might exist" sound quite a lot like an atheist.
And, if thats true, then we should probably revisit whether the emotional resistance you touched on in 106 is stronger than you initially believed.
[... Taylor, have you read this last page? ECP and I disagree on each others' understanding of your beliefs. How can you come in here and say we both understand your beliefs if our understanding of your beliefs not only differs but is the point of contention?
I don't know what to tell you. Based on my reading, your both are correct about the substance of my beliefs. As in, you both understand what my beliefs are. The disagreement--based on my reading--is over what to CALL that. As in, what label is appropriate.
I am standing by post #82 for the reasons in post #106. Miraculously, no one seemed to have misinterpreted post #82.
His first block of text in post 104 is directly at odds with your response to me in post 114 where I wanted you to verify what I had inferred you meant. He wasn't call you agnostic because you were agnostic to at least one god, but because he thought you were more unsure than you actually are.
How could time NOT matter?
Talking about something "before" time starts or "outside" of space is -as far as I can tell- a complete contradiction. Think about it. Space is all locations, so you'd be saying this something is "not located in any possible location" which doesn't make sense. Time is all whens, so you'd be saying this something is "happening before things started happening" which doesn't make sense to me either.
Yes but I didn't ask you what god was like before time exists or anything like that. You said its possible a kickstarter god exists. I am saying suppose that assumption is true, can you describe it or tell us anything about it?
Anyway, the concept is so alien I can't even begin to imagine what it might be; it could be anything or nothing or both simultaneously. As far as I can tell you're essentially asking me to break the Law of Thought.
not at all and those attributes have been talked about in philosophy. No law of thought is being broken. You put forth the possibility now I am asking you to tell us what a kickstarter god is.
Elvish Crack Piper, I know I already exonerated myself from this, but with Highroller leaving I don't know who else could take his place. However, I feel uncomfortable debating this. I've already typed pages and pages on this forum over the years about the definition of Agnostic vs Agnostic-Atheist or Agnostic-Theist. I don't really feel like rehashing that semantic debate. Additionally, I don't know if any of my cognitive biases are effecting my responses. I don't trust myself enough to comment objectively.
However, I will say I'm most comfortable using Dawkin's numbering system. And, based on that I would count myself Agnostic, not Agnostic-Atheist or Agnostic-Theist. I understand you "will admit that it is, technically, a possibility," but the question is which you find MORE LIKELY, not which you discount completely.
All forms of Agnostic agree the answer is up-in-the-air. But, Agnostic-Atheists -like Dawkins- feel the universe being created for a reason -while possible- is unlikely. I don't.
Yes but I didn't ask you what god was like before time exists or anything like that. You said its possible a kickstarter god exists. I am saying suppose that assumption is true, can you describe it or tell us anything about it.
No, no I can't.
You can keep asking the same question in different ways, FoxBlade, my answer will be the same.
Highroller wasn't even taking your place. He had core misunderstandings of what your stated beliefs are.
The big issue I see Taylor is that you, presumably, are not like this with other beliefs. You operate like any of us do in our day to day lives, but when the question relates to religion you do, well, what any atheist does. For all those silly religious with their magical artifacts, direct contact with deities and magic you, rightly so, discount them as the ridiculous, often bronze age, vestiges that they are.
However, the concept of god got into you young and you just don't want to let it go. Even though (and I'm intentionally using your simulated universe thing here) every actual example of claimed to exist gods we have is nonsense. And yet, the concept lives on. Kind of reminds me when "generic republican" tested higher in the polls last presidential election cycle than any of the actual people in the primary.
What you actually believe, particularly taken as a whole, is very similar to atheism. The only difference is that you seem to want to give a higher probability to a kickstarter god than I do. Why is that? I can't say for certain, but the previous paragraph and this is my general thoughts. You simply, for whatever reason, want for there to be a god. I can think of no other reason for this curious assemblage. Particular since you've stated you won't actually argue in favor of this idea of god, merely arguing that it not able to be discounted completely. That sentiment being something a weak or agnostic atheist will not challenge you on.
Or, to rephrase slightly,
You are atheist to 99.99% of gods while being agnostic to the .01% (should have more nines and zeros, but whatever) and my contention would be, basically, that you've allowed cultural belief in the concept of gods to give you this hangup where you aren't allowing yourself to use the same kind of evidence/reason based ways of thinking that you do for everything else. Why else would you maintain belief in a proposition for which you admit you have no argument in favor of? Doesn't make any sense. As for the pages and pages you've written in the past. Well, I was there. I didn't, personally, find it all that convincing back when you were saying you were more uncertain, in general, and now thats its only the deist/kickstarter types that you are waffling over the term agnostic is less appropriate now than it was the last time.
@All,
I'm going to be out of town for 3 days so don't expect a response past a sentence or two from my cellphone so anyone can feel free to jump in, or not, since I won't be here. I don't really care at this point, particularly if the next response isn't detailed.
No, no I can't.
You can keep asking the same question in different ways, FoxBlade, my answer will be the same.
Well then the idea you put forth as a possibility of a kickstarter god is without substance or meaning and we could and should dismiss it as such.
You might as well say a "fjhfhcp" possibly kick started the universe. So now the question becomes how can you be agnostic to your kickstarter god in the first place?
unknown aspect plays heavily here. Issue becomes that the more you push it backwatds to keep it outside human knowledge, the more you have problems with gotg. Hitchens and Russell work well here. The teapot on one hand with Hitchens thing about dismissing unevidenced claims on that basis. There is nothing in Taylors lack of qualities for this god to make it patentedly ridiculous since deist/kickstarter is more of a category of possible gods than a specific god. Ie, no particular need to create separate thought experiments for deist god Steve and deist god sue since it's an unimportant detail.
The crux of it is that Taylor would like to believe in a god so he has found the only gap in our knowledge big enough to hide one that isn't immediately ridiculous and he only accomplished that feat for himself by complete rejection of detail
Magicware999:
Try thinking of it as being like how an engineer uses them to design a rocket. They are not the machine, but they describe it perfectly and therefore properly understanding them is the same as understanding the rocket.
Tayler:
I'm not having a conversation that says logic can be used to disprove logic.
Blinking Spirit:
1. If we accept that 2 and every higher natural number is defined relative to 1, that still leaves the question of what 1 is. You have just ignored this. If 1 is absolute, then every number defined relative to it likewise snaps into the absolute by induction. And 1 is absolute. There can be no debate over whether you have one of a given well-defined thing or not. If we have consensus on what an apple is, and I put one apple on the table, nobody can reasonably say, "I believe that there are two apples." So then if I continue to add apples to the table one by one, we find that all the natural numbers are likewise absolute.
EE:
Sorry about overlooking you.
Here's that first bit with aesthetically different but functionally identical words. I think though we'll need to be careful else end up straying into having two congruent but not-exactly-related discussions where we both argue points the other isn't making.
Nothing is really "big" or "small." If all existence were a mile across then an inch would be very long indeed. So you can say, "What is a foot?" and I reply, "Twelve inches," you would not be wrong in saying, "Well then what is an inch?" For any measurement to have value there must be something to measure it against. This doesn't cover the whole of the idea but if viewing it differently will help this should do enough.
Blinkingspirit:
Numbers are value.
EE:
But again, what value? Against what can measurements be measured?
Blinkingspirit:
(Paraphrase) The bit about assumptions.
EE:
This addresses the next bit also, so hooray for efficiency.
Assumptions are necessary for literally any decision to be made rationally or any idea to make sense. I don't check my floor for scorpions when I wake up in the morning, I take what I know and make assumptions regarding the lack of stinging arachnids. I think the assumptions made are reasonable: Nature exists, in some fundamental way it really is there. Cause and effect is inviolate within it, things happen or are as they are because things happened to cause them and this is never not true (this could go back to the origin and we could have that conversation but it's not this one so moving on). Nature is measurable with perfect certainty if you know the right numbers, I only mean the physical realm in this case, and I know the numbers to know things (like when deer will go extinct or something) would get impossibly difficult for us to calculate, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be. They're assumptions, but if you don't make certain assumptions you'd just be paralyzed by indecision worrying every space not in front of your eyes might be filled with scorpions.
Blinkingspirit:
"Force"
EE:
Force in this case is vague because there's no way within a language designed for a physical system to exactly express something that is inherently outside its bounds. It sounds better than "thingy" and does the same job.
Blinking Spirit:
Even assuming your premise that the "force"... must not have had external impetus, how on earth does this imply mental choice?
EE:
This seems inherently contradictory but it's the bounds of language trying to describe the source of language so bear with me.
This force would be outside cause-and-effect. Nothing caused it, and nothing can affect it. There's no other reason for it to do anything but that it itself chose to.
Blinkingspirit:
You have also just equivocated between "create" and "give value to". Who's to say that those two acts are the same, or even in any way related?
EE:
Assuming cause and effect still work here, and there's no reason to think they don't, then all things that exist within or interact with our world can be measured accurately only in relation to this. It is the source of creation, and creation has value, and things that don't exist have no value, and so it must not only have but define value.
Blinkingspirit:
(Paraphrase)That thing about it not being the capital "G" God.
EE:
It was to show I wasn't trying to skip ahead.
Everyone:
(Paraphrase)A billion-billion words.
EE:
I'm kind of being overwhelmed by sheer volume of words here, many of which don't seem related to the original idea unless you take a sort of universal-interconnectedness sort of view. And honestly this is amazingly more tiresome than I expected, the Keats has been moved from an open tab to the "When I get a chance" bookmarks folder, where what is not dead will most likely eternal lie. No promises on my ability to keep my part of this going.
Elvish Crack Piper:
Again, based on my reading both you and Highroller understood what I said. It wasn't a misunderstanding in what my beliefs ARE that was causing the argument; it was a misunderstanding in what "Agnostic," "Atheist," and "Theist" means (as well as combinations of those words). Now, I don't claim I really understand those words either. Despite my bluster for the last -God, has it really been- over 8 years, I don't really know either. I don't have formal training in philosophy, and we all know how awful I am at English.
But, I think we can all agree that in order to be a Theist, one only need to believe in ONE God. As you yourself are apt to say: Atheists are Christians that have decided to only go one God further. To use your statistics, a Christian disbelieves in 99.99% of Gods and a Strong Atheist just disbelieves in 0.01% more. The difference between a Strong Theist and a Strong Atheist is over one God. Thus, it seems to me only reasonable this should also be the difference between an Agnostic, an Agnostic-Atheist, and an Agnostic-Theist.
Now, your (however justified) ad hominem argument aside, the whole argument is about how much credence one gives to that one idea. The fact I believe a little bit more than you is -as far as I can tell- the knifes edge between all those definitions. You're panting with much too thick a brush.
Now -because I feel its only fair- allow me to give my armchair physicist's renditioning of you: You don't -and never have- cared about the deeper meaning behind all of this. To you, it's all ivory tower mumbo jumbo. You only study this stuff because you feel it's the best way to convince people to not go to church or making other decisions based on religion. The cosmological ramifications and exact definitions are just something you looked into to be more convincing to the layman. A Deist and an Atheist are the same thing to you because of how they act. You'd want Deists labeled "Atheist" to help the anti-superstition movement's numbers, not because you care deeply about our origins or beliefs. (At least, that's the impression I've gotten from you.)
Now, if you have any actual arguments about the probability of that one deity -as apposed to speculation about my upbringing- let me know.
Anyway I guess see you in 3 days. I might take a break until then myself, since it seems all of the interesting people have op'ed out. I guess I didn't do a good enough job with the minibosses to advance to the final level (yes BS, I'm talking about you ).
Now -I would like to stress- it is my understanding the difference between saying "reason" or "no reason" when talking about the start of the universe the fundamental difference between an atheist and a theist. One claims that there is no reason(or 'mind' if you like) behind existence, and the other claims there is a reason. All I am saying is I am "betting" there is a reason for existence. I would also like to stress I am making no other claims. I am not commenting on the nature of this "reason" in anyway other than to say I'm "betting" there is one. I'm guessing, acknowledging I'm guessing, and not going any further down this speculative path.
Is there some specific question to have about this explanation other than "BUT HOW CAN THIS BE?"
TaylOr:
I'm not having a conversation that says logic can be used to disprove logic.
Well, if you feel Gödel's greatest work is a sham, ok. But, you still haven't answered the question I asked: What would you use instead? We both -I assume- acknowledge the limitations of logic. In fact, in this statement I quoted you are claiming that there are somethings logic cannot do. But, how did you come to that conclusion? If not logic, what did you use to come to the conclusion logic can't disprove logic?
No Taylor, you're missing my entire point. The thing that you are saying exists as a possibility is devoid of any substance or meaning. Your "kickstarter god" is exactly equal to "fjhfhcp" in that they both mean exactly nothing.
You can't be an agnostic and claim that a meaningless thing, is equally possible and not possible. That is incoherent because the thing itself has no meaning.
and this quote:
Quote from Taylor »
Now -I would like to stress- it is my understanding the difference between saying "reason" or "no reason" when talking about the start of the universe the fundamental difference between an atheist and a theist. One claims that there is no reason(or 'mind' if you like) behind existence, and the other claims there is a reason. All I am saying is I am "betting" there is a reason for existence. I would also like to stress I am making no other claims. I am not commenting on the nature of this "reason" in anyway other than to say I'm "betting" there is one. I'm guessing, acknowledging I'm guessing, and not going any further down this speculative path.
Doesn't answer how you can claim to be an agnostic. All you are telling us is that there is a reason that the universe started, which is like telling us that water is wet. There's no disagreement between theists and atheists that there are reasons for the universe's existence.
For advanced quantum-mechanical reasons we're not going to get into here, an atom of cesium-133 rapidly transitions between two distinct and measurable states in what is called its hyperfine structure, like a tiny little light bulb blinking on and off. When the atom is at rest in the current frame of reference and not interfered with by external energy sources, the period of this oscillation is regular enough that we use it to run atomic clocks and define the standard measurements for time. Multiply time by the speed of light in a vacuum, and you get distance. In short, a foot is the distance a photon covers in 9.346179607801748 cesium-133 transitions.
Assumptions are necessary for literally any decision to be made rationally or any idea to make sense. I don't check my floor for scorpions when I wake up in the morning, I take what I know and make assumptions regarding the lack of stinging arachnids. I think the assumptions made are reasonable: Nature exists, in some fundamental way it really is there. Cause and effect is inviolate within it, things happen or are as they are because things happened to cause them and this is never not true (this could go back to the origin and we could have that conversation but it's not this one so moving on). Nature is measurable with perfect certainty if you know the right numbers, I only mean the physical realm in this case, and I know the numbers to know things (like when deer will go extinct or something) would get impossibly difficult for us to calculate, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be. They're assumptions, but if you don't make certain assumptions you'd just be paralyzed by indecision worrying every space not in front of your eyes might be filled with scorpions.
We make lots of assumptions in everyday life, yes. But when we are aspiring to write a logical proof, every assumption we make must be stated explicitly and not contested by any party involved in the argument. I mention all your assumptions precisely because I am contesting them. You need to justify them. If you could make any assumption you wanted, and when they were contested just wave your hands and say "We all make assumptions", then you could start by saying "I assume that God exists" and not bother with a proof at all.
This seems inherently contradictory but it's the bounds of language trying to describe the source of language so bear with me.
This force would be outside cause-and-effect. Nothing caused it, and nothing can affect it. There's no other reason for it to do anything but that it itself chose to.
Talor:
What would you use instead? We both -I assume- acknowledge the limitations of logic.
EE:
Absolutely not. Limits of our ability to apply or understand it, but the thing itself is without limits. I cannot do the math on how to send a vessel to Alpha Cenauri, but I am certain the math is there, infallible, just like it is for everything I can see.
This could go further but not to anyone's benefit.
Blinkingspirit:
(Paraphrase) It's X because science.
EE:
Well I do firmly believe math is always right. Still, that measure, the distance the atom travels, is still relative to everything else. I could bisect that and you could show the measurements of the parts unto infinity but it would still all be relative to each other. Precision nearing infinity but never reaching it.
Blinkingspirit:
But when we are aspiring to write a logical proof, every assumption we make must be stated explicitly and not contested by any party involved in the argument. I mention all your assumptions precisely because I am contesting them. You need to justify them. If you could make any assumption you wanted, and when they were contested just wave your hands and say "We all make assumptions", then you could start by saying "I assume that God exists" and not bother with a proof at all.
EE:
This is interesting. I suppose for lack of education (thus practice) and the informal forum environment I allowed myself to skip over things I had considered not core to the idea. This isn't what I expected but is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for with this, thank you.
What listed or unlisted assumptions am I making that are contested?
Blinkingspirit:
Prove it.
EE:
Clearly what caused this God to create nature would have been internal, since nothing outside of it can affect it. In order for this to be true it must be outside the realm of time, or at least untouched by it, and thus unchanging, perfectly stable, the only thing that Is because it Is.*
*In Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis comes at this from another way, beginning with morality and moving from there, but since morality is also a set of rules (like math) it's a fascinating how it brings a sort of all-encompassing quality to not just the idea of God, but to everything else as well. I bring it up because I'm going to have to dig up my copy to say what I'm trying to say. I'll be back.
Well I do firmly believe math is always right. Still, that measure, the distance the atom travels, is still relative to everything else. I could bisect that and you could show the measurements of the parts unto infinity but it would still all be relative to each other. Precision nearing infinity but never reaching it.
Missing the point. One hyperfine transition of cesium-133 is, objectively, absolutely, and exactly one hyperfine transition of cesium-133. You can't argue that it's actually two hyperfine transitions of cesium-133, or that it's two relative to something else. You can bisect the unit, sure, but then you're talking about two half-transitions, which add right back up to one transition. One is real. You need a unit to say what you've got one of, but you definitely have one of it.
(Oddly enough, I actually did allude to the real theory of relativity in passing, but your argument is unrelated to and unsubstantiated by it.)
This is interesting. I suppose for lack of education (thus practice) and the informal forum environment I allowed myself to skip over things I had considered not core to the idea. This isn't what I expected but is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for with this, thank you.
What listed or unlisted assumptions am I making that are contested?
What is an "anchor point" and why does the number system need one? Does it even make sense to ask the question of whether an abstract system "exists", or is it a category error, like asking what color Tuesday is? When you say our physical universe functions on mathematics, what does that mean? Can mathematics, by its nature as an abstract system, stand in a relationship of ontological priority to the universe? Is it perhaps ontologically posterior instead? Or do they have a different relationship entirely? And why would it matter if they did?
Clearly what caused this God to create nature would have been internal, since nothing outside of it can affect it. In order for this to be true it must be outside the realm of time, or at least untouched by it, and thus unchanging, perfectly stable, the only thing that Is because it Is.
Says nothing about choice. Also begs the question by using the term "God" from the outset. If the first cause of the universe does not have a mind and did not make a choice, it would not be accurate to call it "God".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
After my clarification, Highroller and Elvish Crack Piper both seem to understand my beliefs. They just seem to be debating how to label them. I'd rather them duke it out, since I would find their conclusions to be much more objective than any I would make about myself.
Case in point, I think they had more insight to parts of my beliefs than I did myself. I was thinking I was a "3" on Dawkins' Spectrum of theistic probability, since I much prefer the Deist interpretation over the Atheistic one. But, they both correctly pointed out -despite my preference- I wasn't giving either one a "better chance" than the other. Thus, for the Deist God (and the Deist God only as HR and ECP pointed out) I would be a "4." I also think ECP's commentary about what he perceives to be a visceral reaction to the label "atheist" is likely correct, in that I do believe have a slight one. I don't think it's affecting my judgement, but I also understand cognitive biases slip past our persecution. So, it's too meta for me to comment on objectively.
Related to that, I could go back to my argument in post #82 and rework it to be a "3" on Dawkins' Spectrum of theistic probability. I could point out every universe beginning we've observed has been of a simulated one(and they're lots and lots of them). So -statistically- we should give more probability to this universe being simulated (and -thus- being created for a reason) than not. However, there are two reasons I'm not sure I have the will to do that.
1) It would be a clear Goal Post Shift. For obvious reasons, I'd rather avoid that.
2) Because, while it is true we have mounds of examples for simulated universes and none for natural universes, none of the simulated universes are as complicated (large) as this one. Theoretically, we will soon be able to make simulated universes like this one. However, theoretically every black hole contains a natural universe. So, if we need to go into the realm of theory, we now don't have many more examples of simulated universes than natural ones.
So, I will stick with the statements I made in post #82 and let Highroller and Elvish Crack Piper decide what that makes me. I believe their judgment on what I am will be more objective than anything I could come up with. I don't believe people can be very objective about themselves (even though I try and try to be just that.)
Silly Aside:
Zezzites are -in fact- fictional aliens. Here's one wearing a green jump suit. Without googling to see, do you think the average one does?
Atheism:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
While Taylor doesn't reject belief in the existence of deities, he does have the absence of belief and that would make him an atheist. Being unsure is not belief and that makes all agnostics - atheists.
I will agree that atheism is "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." However, Taylor (presumably) does not reject the existence of deities. Ergo, he is not atheist.
... Taylor, have you read this last page? ECP and I disagree on each others' understanding of your beliefs. How can you come in here and say we both understand your beliefs if our understanding of your beliefs not only differs but is the point of contention?
EDIT: You know what? No. I'm done. I've lost all interest in this line of discussion.
There is not a single, "perfect" definition of Atheism. Even the source you cite describes a broad meaning and a narrow meaning. For the purposes of this debate, it's more useful to go with the narrower definition that permits us to talk about differences between agnosticism and atheism.
It reminds me of a famous old Supreme Court case in which the Court was asked to determine whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit for the purpose of import tariffs. The Court recognized that scientists taxonomically classify the tomato as a fruit, but held that the tariff laws care about the tomato's culinary use not it's scientific classification, making it legally a vegetable. Did the Court get the decision wrong? I would say no; they recognized that the fruit/vegetable distinction has different meanings in different contexts. It's the same with the definition of atheism - the precise meaning of the term will vary depending on what we're talking about.
I am standing by post #82 for the reasons in post #106. Miraculously, no one seemed to have misinterpreted post #82.
No. All one needs to be atheist is a lack of belief in a deity, that makes all agnostics atheist.
It doesn't have to be just a rejection of belief in deities. However...
I agree, but this is more an off topic semantics thing. For purposes of this discussion, it would be more helpful to use 'agnostic' to note that Taylor sits more in the middle than leaning on either side.
I have a complete reply written to highroller, but he seems to want you in the straight agnostic category and I believe this is due to him misunderstanding which gods you are agnostic towards and which ones you aren't. On bus, will write more later
Suppose this kick starter did god exist, what would be the nature of this kick starter god?
But anyway...
By asking me this, you(FoxBlade) are essentially asking me to speculate about things BEFORE 'time equals zero.' Since the very statement "BEFORE 'time equals zero'" is nonsensical, I'm not really sure how you expect me to answer.
Also, I wasn't aware there were very many other Deist around here. You sure it wasn't me? I used to go by the name of "SoronTheBeast," but I don't like to talk about that.
I am asking you to share your ideas. Everything is on the table in terms of possibilities.
Talking about something "before" time starts or "outside" of space is -as far as I can tell- a complete contradiction. Think about it. Space is all locations, so you'd be saying this something is "not located in any possible location" which doesn't make sense. Time is all whens, so you'd be saying this something is "happening before things started happening" which doesn't make sense to me either.
Anyway, the concept is so alien I can't even begin to imagine what it might be; it could be anything or nothing or both simultaneously. As far as I can tell you're essentially asking me to break the Law of Thought.
Because being uncertain to the specific type of god that is being talked about, the unknowable types, and not believing in the rest is really similar, if not functionally identical, to some formulations of atheism. Specifically Agnostic/Weak/Whatever atheism. I do not claim to be able to disprove all kinds of gods or the concept in general or whatever. I don't believe in any particular gods and I don't believe there exists evidence to justify a positive belief in one.
You don't believe in any particular gods, actively disbelieving in all of them except the deist one. Regarding the deist/kickstarter one you take a true agnostic stance towards it on the basis of a lack of information which runs afoul of Russel's Teapot, but whatever. The comments about equiprobable are a whole nother discussion. You say you like the idea more of deism than atheism and say you lean towards it, but admit you don't actually know.
Or, put conversationally, here is a simple way you could tell a random person at a coffeeshop if they asked you what you believe:
Taylor: "Well, I'm not religious, but there might be a god. I just don't think any of the world religions have it right and, at best, a deist/kickstarter god might exist"
I, too, will freely admit that that kind of god might exist. I think most atheists, particularly ones here, will admit that it is, technically, a possibility (we don't believe in it because there isn't exactly anything approaching evidence to point us in that direction), but a possibility nonetheless.
Aside from the fact that we are talking about you, personally, how does the person, described basically as "an irreligious person who thinks, at most, some sort of kickstarter god might exist" is best categorized as? As much as boxes and pidgeonholes are annoying, its become the crux of the issue and, well, assuming that you don't worship this deist thing or actually do anything with it, I'm pretty confident at putting you in the irreligious box and so "an irreligious person who thinks, at most, some sort of kickstarter god might exist" seems to be a pretty good, albeit colloquial, way of describing you
The question then is does "an irreligious person who thinks, at most, some sort of kickstarter god might exist" sound quite a lot like an atheist.
And, if thats true, then we should probably revisit whether the emotional resistance you touched on in 106 is stronger than you initially believed.
His first block of text in post 104 is directly at odds with your response to me in post 114 where I wanted you to verify what I had inferred you meant. He wasn't call you agnostic because you were agnostic to at least one god, but because he thought you were more unsure than you actually are.
It's likely his frustration stemmed from this.
Yes but I didn't ask you what god was like before time exists or anything like that. You said its possible a kickstarter god exists. I am saying suppose that assumption is true, can you describe it or tell us anything about it?
not at all and those attributes have been talked about in philosophy. No law of thought is being broken. You put forth the possibility now I am asking you to tell us what a kickstarter god is.
However, I will say I'm most comfortable using Dawkin's numbering system. And, based on that I would count myself Agnostic, not Agnostic-Atheist or Agnostic-Theist. I understand you "will admit that it is, technically, a possibility," but the question is which you find MORE LIKELY, not which you discount completely.
All forms of Agnostic agree the answer is up-in-the-air. But, Agnostic-Atheists -like Dawkins- feel the universe being created for a reason -while possible- is unlikely. I don't.
I don't know what you do, but I can say I don't.
No, no I can't.
You can keep asking the same question in different ways, FoxBlade, my answer will be the same.
The big issue I see Taylor is that you, presumably, are not like this with other beliefs. You operate like any of us do in our day to day lives, but when the question relates to religion you do, well, what any atheist does. For all those silly religious with their magical artifacts, direct contact with deities and magic you, rightly so, discount them as the ridiculous, often bronze age, vestiges that they are.
However, the concept of god got into you young and you just don't want to let it go. Even though (and I'm intentionally using your simulated universe thing here) every actual example of claimed to exist gods we have is nonsense. And yet, the concept lives on. Kind of reminds me when "generic republican" tested higher in the polls last presidential election cycle than any of the actual people in the primary.
What you actually believe, particularly taken as a whole, is very similar to atheism. The only difference is that you seem to want to give a higher probability to a kickstarter god than I do. Why is that? I can't say for certain, but the previous paragraph and this is my general thoughts. You simply, for whatever reason, want for there to be a god. I can think of no other reason for this curious assemblage. Particular since you've stated you won't actually argue in favor of this idea of god, merely arguing that it not able to be discounted completely. That sentiment being something a weak or agnostic atheist will not challenge you on.
Or, to rephrase slightly,
You are atheist to 99.99% of gods while being agnostic to the .01% (should have more nines and zeros, but whatever) and my contention would be, basically, that you've allowed cultural belief in the concept of gods to give you this hangup where you aren't allowing yourself to use the same kind of evidence/reason based ways of thinking that you do for everything else. Why else would you maintain belief in a proposition for which you admit you have no argument in favor of? Doesn't make any sense. As for the pages and pages you've written in the past. Well, I was there. I didn't, personally, find it all that convincing back when you were saying you were more uncertain, in general, and now thats its only the deist/kickstarter types that you are waffling over the term agnostic is less appropriate now than it was the last time.
@All,
I'm going to be out of town for 3 days so don't expect a response past a sentence or two from my cellphone so anyone can feel free to jump in, or not, since I won't be here. I don't really care at this point, particularly if the next response isn't detailed.
Peace
Well then the idea you put forth as a possibility of a kickstarter god is without substance or meaning and we could and should dismiss it as such.
You might as well say a "fjhfhcp" possibly kick started the universe. So now the question becomes how can you be agnostic to your kickstarter god in the first place?
The crux of it is that Taylor would like to believe in a god so he has found the only gap in our knowledge big enough to hide one that isn't immediately ridiculous and he only accomplished that feat for himself by complete rejection of detail
Try thinking of it as being like how an engineer uses them to design a rocket. They are not the machine, but they describe it perfectly and therefore properly understanding them is the same as understanding the rocket.
Tayler:
I'm not having a conversation that says logic can be used to disprove logic.
Blinking Spirit:
1. If we accept that 2 and every higher natural number is defined relative to 1, that still leaves the question of what 1 is. You have just ignored this. If 1 is absolute, then every number defined relative to it likewise snaps into the absolute by induction. And 1 is absolute. There can be no debate over whether you have one of a given well-defined thing or not. If we have consensus on what an apple is, and I put one apple on the table, nobody can reasonably say, "I believe that there are two apples." So then if I continue to add apples to the table one by one, we find that all the natural numbers are likewise absolute.
EE:
Sorry about overlooking you.
Here's that first bit with aesthetically different but functionally identical words. I think though we'll need to be careful else end up straying into having two congruent but not-exactly-related discussions where we both argue points the other isn't making.
Nothing is really "big" or "small." If all existence were a mile across then an inch would be very long indeed. So you can say, "What is a foot?" and I reply, "Twelve inches," you would not be wrong in saying, "Well then what is an inch?" For any measurement to have value there must be something to measure it against. This doesn't cover the whole of the idea but if viewing it differently will help this should do enough.
Blinkingspirit:
Numbers are value.
EE:
But again, what value? Against what can measurements be measured?
Blinkingspirit:
(Paraphrase) The bit about assumptions.
EE:
This addresses the next bit also, so hooray for efficiency.
Assumptions are necessary for literally any decision to be made rationally or any idea to make sense. I don't check my floor for scorpions when I wake up in the morning, I take what I know and make assumptions regarding the lack of stinging arachnids. I think the assumptions made are reasonable: Nature exists, in some fundamental way it really is there. Cause and effect is inviolate within it, things happen or are as they are because things happened to cause them and this is never not true (this could go back to the origin and we could have that conversation but it's not this one so moving on). Nature is measurable with perfect certainty if you know the right numbers, I only mean the physical realm in this case, and I know the numbers to know things (like when deer will go extinct or something) would get impossibly difficult for us to calculate, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be. They're assumptions, but if you don't make certain assumptions you'd just be paralyzed by indecision worrying every space not in front of your eyes might be filled with scorpions.
Blinkingspirit:
"Force"
EE:
Force in this case is vague because there's no way within a language designed for a physical system to exactly express something that is inherently outside its bounds. It sounds better than "thingy" and does the same job.
Blinking Spirit:
Even assuming your premise that the "force"... must not have had external impetus, how on earth does this imply mental choice?
EE:
This seems inherently contradictory but it's the bounds of language trying to describe the source of language so bear with me.
This force would be outside cause-and-effect. Nothing caused it, and nothing can affect it. There's no other reason for it to do anything but that it itself chose to.
Blinkingspirit:
You have also just equivocated between "create" and "give value to". Who's to say that those two acts are the same, or even in any way related?
EE:
Assuming cause and effect still work here, and there's no reason to think they don't, then all things that exist within or interact with our world can be measured accurately only in relation to this. It is the source of creation, and creation has value, and things that don't exist have no value, and so it must not only have but define value.
Blinkingspirit:
(Paraphrase)That thing about it not being the capital "G" God.
EE:
It was to show I wasn't trying to skip ahead.
Everyone:
(Paraphrase)A billion-billion words.
EE:
I'm kind of being overwhelmed by sheer volume of words here, many of which don't seem related to the original idea unless you take a sort of universal-interconnectedness sort of view. And honestly this is amazingly more tiresome than I expected, the Keats has been moved from an open tab to the "When I get a chance" bookmarks folder, where what is not dead will most likely eternal lie. No promises on my ability to keep my part of this going.
Again, based on my reading both you and Highroller understood what I said. It wasn't a misunderstanding in what my beliefs ARE that was causing the argument; it was a misunderstanding in what "Agnostic," "Atheist," and "Theist" means (as well as combinations of those words). Now, I don't claim I really understand those words either. Despite my bluster for the last -God, has it really been- over 8 years, I don't really know either. I don't have formal training in philosophy, and we all know how awful I am at English.
But, I think we can all agree that in order to be a Theist, one only need to believe in ONE God. As you yourself are apt to say: Atheists are Christians that have decided to only go one God further. To use your statistics, a Christian disbelieves in 99.99% of Gods and a Strong Atheist just disbelieves in 0.01% more. The difference between a Strong Theist and a Strong Atheist is over one God. Thus, it seems to me only reasonable this should also be the difference between an Agnostic, an Agnostic-Atheist, and an Agnostic-Theist.
Now, your (however justified) ad hominem argument aside, the whole argument is about how much credence one gives to that one idea. The fact I believe a little bit more than you is -as far as I can tell- the knifes edge between all those definitions. You're panting with much too thick a brush.
Now -because I feel its only fair- allow me to give my armchair physicist's renditioning of you: You don't -and never have- cared about the deeper meaning behind all of this. To you, it's all ivory tower mumbo jumbo. You only study this stuff because you feel it's the best way to convince people to not go to church or making other decisions based on religion. The cosmological ramifications and exact definitions are just something you looked into to be more convincing to the layman. A Deist and an Atheist are the same thing to you because of how they act. You'd want Deists labeled "Atheist" to help the anti-superstition movement's numbers, not because you care deeply about our origins or beliefs. (At least, that's the impression I've gotten from you.)
Now, if you have any actual arguments about the probability of that one deity -as apposed to speculation about my upbringing- let me know.
Anyway I guess see you in 3 days. I might take a break until then myself, since it seems all of the interesting people have op'ed out. I guess I didn't do a good enough job with the minibosses to advance to the final level (yes BS, I'm talking about you ).
Did my best to answer this in post #82: Is there some specific question to have about this explanation other than "BUT HOW CAN THIS BE?"
Well, if you feel Gödel's greatest work is a sham, ok. But, you still haven't answered the question I asked: What would you use instead? We both -I assume- acknowledge the limitations of logic. In fact, in this statement I quoted you are claiming that there are somethings logic cannot do. But, how did you come to that conclusion? If not logic, what did you use to come to the conclusion logic can't disprove logic?
You can't be an agnostic and claim that a meaningless thing, is equally possible and not possible. That is incoherent because the thing itself has no meaning.
and this quote:
Doesn't answer how you can claim to be an agnostic. All you are telling us is that there is a reason that the universe started, which is like telling us that water is wet. There's no disagreement between theists and atheists that there are reasons for the universe's existence.
We make lots of assumptions in everyday life, yes. But when we are aspiring to write a logical proof, every assumption we make must be stated explicitly and not contested by any party involved in the argument. I mention all your assumptions precisely because I am contesting them. You need to justify them. If you could make any assumption you wanted, and when they were contested just wave your hands and say "We all make assumptions", then you could start by saying "I assume that God exists" and not bother with a proof at all.
Does not follow. Prove it.
Nope.
That's not what Gödel proved.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What would you use instead? We both -I assume- acknowledge the limitations of logic.
EE:
Absolutely not. Limits of our ability to apply or understand it, but the thing itself is without limits. I cannot do the math on how to send a vessel to Alpha Cenauri, but I am certain the math is there, infallible, just like it is for everything I can see.
This could go further but not to anyone's benefit.
Blinkingspirit:
(Paraphrase) It's X because science.
EE:
Well I do firmly believe math is always right. Still, that measure, the distance the atom travels, is still relative to everything else. I could bisect that and you could show the measurements of the parts unto infinity but it would still all be relative to each other. Precision nearing infinity but never reaching it.
Blinkingspirit:
But when we are aspiring to write a logical proof, every assumption we make must be stated explicitly and not contested by any party involved in the argument. I mention all your assumptions precisely because I am contesting them. You need to justify them. If you could make any assumption you wanted, and when they were contested just wave your hands and say "We all make assumptions", then you could start by saying "I assume that God exists" and not bother with a proof at all.
EE:
This is interesting. I suppose for lack of education (thus practice) and the informal forum environment I allowed myself to skip over things I had considered not core to the idea. This isn't what I expected but is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for with this, thank you.
What listed or unlisted assumptions am I making that are contested?
Blinkingspirit:
Prove it.
EE:
Clearly what caused this God to create nature would have been internal, since nothing outside of it can affect it. In order for this to be true it must be outside the realm of time, or at least untouched by it, and thus unchanging, perfectly stable, the only thing that Is because it Is.*
*In Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis comes at this from another way, beginning with morality and moving from there, but since morality is also a set of rules (like math) it's a fascinating how it brings a sort of all-encompassing quality to not just the idea of God, but to everything else as well. I bring it up because I'm going to have to dig up my copy to say what I'm trying to say. I'll be back.
(Oddly enough, I actually did allude to the real theory of relativity in passing, but your argument is unrelated to and unsubstantiated by it.)
Says nothing about choice. Also begs the question by using the term "God" from the outset. If the first cause of the universe does not have a mind and did not make a choice, it would not be accurate to call it "God".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.