Fighting Two Fronts

[Kilgore Trout]

Atheists aren't asserting, again. They're asking for justification.

Lack of belief in something doesn't equate to belief in lack of something.

Just let it go. You see, you cannot meaningfully debate with someone for whom truth has no value.

I doubt this one can even tell the difference between honesty and lies - a true atruthist.

 

[Ben Masada]

Here you are doing it again--asserting things you cannot demonstrate to be true. It is not us who brought Physics into the discussion, but you. Your entire argument rests on the premise that the Universe came into existence. I am merely pointing out to you that premise is not supported. I don't know why you can't grasp this point; it is not very complicated.

Maybe we need to go back and start by talking about what an argument is and how it works?

The only person who seems angry or bloodied here is you.

You did assert that you were ready to become an atheist if your argument failed, but don't worry; none of us believed you anyway.

Yes, but my argument has not failed. You all have not come out with a satisfactory answer to my question. How could I have failed? Yes, I was the one who brought to you that the universe came into existence. Have you proved that it has come out of nothing, as if out of the magician hat? No, you have not. How can you talk about failure? So far, you are the ones who have failed. I have used Logic and the Scriptures to support me. You discard both and offer me the opinions of your own peers who have nothing better than theories which are born today and die tomorrow without ever become old enouth to metamorphose into facts. Can you see now what side is failure coming from?

 

[Ben Masada]

The crux of my argument, which you haven't fully become aware of yet, is that it's impossible to calculate the probabilities of any of these things yet. The universe could have been made by a being, it could have always existed, this universe could be a branch from another universe, this universe could be a random reversal in entropy in a large megaverse in thermodynamic equilibrium, this universe could be the collision of brane structures -- there are far, far more possibilities than you've mentioned and there isn't enough data to calculate the probability that any of them are true, including the "God did it" one.

Can you see how hypothetical are your views of the universe. You have nothing substantious to offer as if you have no idea at all about the human spirit. I compare your uncertainties to one's lack of ability to decide what lifesaver to throw to another who is drowning. When you decide, if you ever do, the struggler has gone down to the deep.

I don't believe any of those things are true in the sense that I'm not convinced of any of them. I only go as far as the data will take me, which forces me to say "I don't know." Furthermore, I contend that no one knows, including those who are saying "God did it."

You only go as far as changing data will take you. You can never be sure where the data will take you to. As you take today the direction they indicate to you, tomorrow you might have to change for a new address. I keep watching and laughing at the evolution they have to keep up with as the universe evolves through expansion.

"God did it" isn't the most rational explanation -- it has rivals which I've mentioned that contain the same amount of assumptions. Just picking "God did it" from a whole pool of possibilities with dubious probabilities is no more rational than just picking one by throwing a dart at a spinning wheel. That's what I'm saying.

As I said above, you lack the knowledge of the human heart. It is only natural of being human to hang in there at something that offers hope. Not everyone is able to rationalize into the abstract. If you don't have anything to offer to satisfy their hungry emotions with something to hope for, your universal god won't be any different from their anthropomorphic little god. At least, they can share the same feelings.

"To be spirit" and "To be incorporeal" are examples of attributes. So, I'm confused -- either God has attributes or not. Are those the only attributes God has? How do you know God has those attributes?

You won't be MM, If I can help. Yes, to be spirit and to be incorporeal are mighty good examples of attributes, but as you have said yourself, "To be," that's the question. Gos IS Spirit and He IS Incorporeal. He does not HAVE a spirit or incorporeality. That's an abyss of a difference. What one has, it can be taken away. God will eternally be a Spirit and Incorporeal. Now, all the other attributes metaphorically granted to man will eventually be taken away because they are temporary, and simply accidents of life. It may be a little hard for you to understand due to your pre-conceived atheistic notions, but if you put a little of meditation into it, you will eventually catch the idea.

 

[Ben Masada]

You're fundamentally misunderstanding what atheism is, I think. We aren't making unfounded assumptions. We're skeptics; we aren't saying "X is false and Y is true," we're saying "I'm not convinced X is true, what's your justification for saying X is true instead of saying 'I don't know'?"

To be scheptics is for the Agnostics, not Atheists. These are as sure that the universe had not a Creator as they are about their knowing nothing where and how the universe has come about. That's where resides their nonsense. If they are not sure about their own beliefs, they should not be so fast about discarding the beliefs of others.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

To be scheptics is for the Agnostics, not Atheists. These are as sure that the universe had not a Creator as they are about their knowing nothing where and how the universe has come about. That's where resides their nonsense. If they are not sure about their own beliefs, they should not be so fast about discarding the beliefs of others.

Get the **** out of your ears.

 

[Ben Masada]

Atheists aren't asserting, again. They're asking for justification.

Lack of belief in something doesn't equate to belief in lack of something.

Well my dear, by default it does, unless one is enough of a fool to declare there is no God with the false assumption that he knows what he is talking about. (Psalm 14:1)

 

[Meow Mix]

Can you see how hypothetical are your views of the universe. You have nothing substantious to offer as if you have no idea at all about the human spirit. I compare your uncertainties to one's lack of ability to decide what lifesaver to throw to another who is drowning. When you decide, if you ever do, the struggler has gone down to the deep.

You only go as far as changing data will take you. You can never be sure where the data will take you to. As you take today the direction they indicate to you, tomorrow you might have to change for a new address. I keep watching and laughing at the evolution they have to keep up with as the universe evolves through expansion.

I only go as far as the data (period) will take me. If there isn't enough data to draw a conclusion then I say "I don't know," I don't just make up an answer all willy-nilly.

This is what I'm getting at: what data did you use to conclude God created the universe that sets it epistemically above and beyond the other possibilities I listed?

If you have data, I think everyone would like to see it. If you don't have data, then surely you can get the gyst of what I'm saying when I compare it to just picking what to believe based on a coin flip or a dart toss.

As I said above, you lack the knowledge of the human heart. It is only natural of being human to hang in there at something that offers hope. Not everyone is able to rationalize into the abstract. If you don't have anything to offer to satisfy their hungry emotions with something to hope for, your universal god won't be any different from their anthropomorphic little god. At least, they can share the same feelings.

Because an idea offers hope doesn't mean it's true, valid, or justified to believe. Surely we can agree on that?

You won't be MM, If I can help. Yes, to be spirit and to be incorporeal are mighty good examples of attributes, but as you have said yourself, "To be," that's the question. Gos IS Spirit and He IS Incorporeal. He does not HAVE a spirit or incorporeality. That's an abyss of a difference. What one has, it can be taken away. God will eternally be a Spirit and Incorporeal. Now, all the other attributes metaphorically granted to man will eventually be taken away because they are temporary, and simply accidents of life. It may be a little hard for you to understand due to your pre-conceived atheistic notions, but if you put a little of meditation into it, you will eventually catch the idea.

I didn't use the words "to have" so half of this is irrelevant. "To be incorporeal" is still an attribute. What are all of God's attributes that you know of, and most importantly, how do you know what God's attributes are? How do you know God is incorporeal, for instance -- where did you come across this information and what justifies it?

 

[Meow Mix]

To be scheptics is for the Agnostics, not Atheists. These are as sure that the universe had not a Creator as they are about their knowing nothing where and how the universe has come about. That's where resides their nonsense. If they are not sure about their own beliefs, they should not be so fast about discarding the beliefs of others.

I'm using the philosophical definitions for agnosticism and atheism, though. Atheism in its most general form is indeed just a skepticism; it is to be "without theism," for any reason. Those who explicitely claim that gods can't exist or that they know gods don't exist are called "strong atheists." I'm not one of those, though I do deny the existence of gods with contradictory attributes.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well my dear, by default it does, unless one is enough of a fool to declare there is no God with the false assumption that he knows what he is talking about. (Psalm 14:1)

No, my original statement is true.

Lack of belief in X is not the same as having a belief in the lack of X.

For instance, I lack belief that extraterrestrials definitely exist on other planets in the universe because I have no direct evidence to form such a belief. (For now, let's ignore probability arguments just to make this point). Just because I lack belief that extraterrestrials exist doesn't mean that I believe that they don't exist. See the difference?

 

[Ben Masada]

I only go as far as the data (period) will take me. If there isn't enough data to draw a conclusion then I say "I don't know," I don't just make up an answer all willy-nilly.

Neither do I. I have Logic and the Scriptures as my sources, besides "The Guide for the Perplexed" by Moses Maimonides.

This is what I'm getting at: what data did you use to conclude God created the universe that sets it epistemically above and beyond the other possibilities I listed?

I have just mentioned above. Regarding your possibilities, they are all based on hypotheses. Your sources are too hypothetical, and that's not a good way to serve truth.

If you have data, I think everyone would like to see it. If you don't have data, then surely you can get the gyst of what I'm saying when I compare it to just picking what to believe based on a coin flip or a dart toss.

I have mentioned above that what I pick is not based on a coin flip. This depicts more what you do.

Because an idea offers hope doesn't mean it's true, valid, or justified to believe. Surely we can agree on that?

It is for the intellectually little guy next door, whom anything is a consolation for his or her mental aspirations. If you are not sure of what you are talking about, you will only cause chaos in his or her heart. Don't you think to be enough that your frustrations should stay with your uncertainties? Why share confusion?

I didn't use the words "to have" so half of this is irrelevant. "To be incorporeal" is still an attribute. What are all of God's attributes that you know of, and most importantly, how do you know what God's attributes are? How do you know God is incorporeal, for instance -- where did you come across this information and what justifies it?

Philosophy, Paraphysics, ESP, Scriptures, not taken literally. And last but not least, Logic. Whatever you understand by attributes, in God, they are part of His essence. This explain my revealing that God IS. In man they are parts of what he has. What one is, he is, no matter what, because it is part of his essence. What one has, can be taken away for being temporaryly but an accident of life. When God, metaphorically created man in His image, He did it in the image of his attributes, because God has no image for man to be created in. It means that some of His attributes were granted to man, not the majority of them. If you still do not understand about attributes, you might return to me if, after consulting a good dictionary, the lack of understanding persists.

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm using the philosophical definitions for agnosticism and atheism, though. Atheism in its most general form is indeed just a skepticism; it is to be "without theism," for any reason. Those who explicitely claim that gods can't exist or that they know gods don't exist are called "strong atheists." I'm not one of those, though I do deny the existence of gods with contradictory attributes.

What do you mean by "contradictory attributes?" Is it the same as negative attributes? HaRambam says that one takes a step closer to the knowledge of God as he approaches Him through negative attributes. For example, to say that God is NOT corporeal is a negative attribute. It means, we are a step closer to the knowldge of God. Logically, God is Incorporeal. To say that God is NOT temporary, is a negative attribute. It means, we are another step closer to the kowledge of God. Logically, God is eternal. To say that God does NOT move is a negative attribute. It means, we have reached a third step closer to the knowledge of God. Logically God is not an accident of matter or matter itself; or even part of the universe. Nu! What do you mean by contradictory attributes?

 

[PolyHedral]

What do you mean by "contradictory attributes?" Is it the same as negative attributes?

She means attributes that are, in some way, mutually contradictory. For instance, the Invisible Pink Unicorn: an object cannot be both invisible AND pink, because having a color at all only makes sense when the object is visible. Thus, it is impossible for any object to have both color and invisibility.

 

[Ben Masada]

No, my original statement is true.

Lack of belief in X is not the same as having a belief in the lack of X.

For instance, I lack belief that extraterrestrials definitely exist on other planets in the universe because I have no direct evidence to form such a belief. (For now, let's ignore probability arguments just to make this point). Just because I lack belief that extraterrestrials exist doesn't mean that I believe that they don't exist. See the difference?

Wow! Believe me, I liked this one. Yes, ma'am, I do see the difference; and I see a lot of Logic in what you say in your beautiful last sentence. "Just because you lack belief that extraterrestrials exist, it does not mean that you believe that they don't exist." You surely have not been born to be a fool, according to Psalm 14:1; 53:1.
Why? Because you have the commonsense to say that your lack of belief in the God or Creator of the universe, does not mean that you believe He does not exist. Yes, you do differ from the harliners of Atheism. Kol hacavode! That's Hebrew for congratulations.

 

[Ben Masada]

She means attributes that are, in some way, mutually contradictory. For instance, the Invisible Pink Unicorn: an object cannot be both invisible AND pink, because having a color at all only makes sense when the object is visible. Thus, it is impossible for any object to have both color and invisibility.

Thanks PolyHedral, I got the message.

 

[ellenjanuary]

No god is greater than tao.

Tao begat One, One begat Two, Two begat Three, Three begat All.

Whaa-PAH!

 

[Ben Masada]

No god is greater than tao.

Tao begat One, One begat Two, Two begat Three, Three begat All.

Whaa-PAH!

I have no idea of what you are talking about!

 

[Meow Mix]

Neither do I. I have Logic and the Scriptures as my sources, besides "The Guide for the Perplexed" by Moses Maimonides.

In what way does logic justify the existence of a deity?

In what way are those specific Scriptures justified over all the other known holy texts, mythologies, and possibilities?

I have just mentioned above. Regarding your possibilities, they are all based on hypotheses. Your sources are too hypothetical, and that's not a good way to serve truth.

I have mentioned above that what I pick is not based on a coin flip. This depicts more what you do.

But as I've told you, I don't believe in any of those hypotheticals because I'm withholding judgement until I have the data to make a decision. You seem to have made a decision, which is why I'm requesting your justification so I can examine it.

It is for the intellectually little guy next door, whom anything is a consolation for his or her mental aspirations. If you are not sure of what you are talking about, you will only cause chaos in his or her heart. Don't you think to be enough that your frustrations should stay with your uncertainties? Why share confusion?

Who says I'm confused? It's far better to say to someone "I don't know" or "I suspect X, but am not positive about it" than to falsely tell them something that's unjustified with confidence.

If my water isn't running in the winter it isn't better for me to (without justification) declare very confidently, "It's because demons have stolen my water" rather than investigating into whether or not the pipes have frozen first.

Philosophy, Paraphysics, ESP, Scriptures, not taken literally. And last but not least, Logic. Whatever you understand by attributes, in God, they are part of His essence. This explain my revealing that God IS. In man they are parts of what he has. What one is, he is, no matter what, because it is part of his essence. What one has, can be taken away for being temporaryly but an accident of life. When God, metaphorically created man in His image, He did it in the image of his attributes, because God has no image for man to be created in. It means that some of His attributes were granted to man, not the majority of them. If you still do not understand about attributes, you might return to me if, after consulting a good dictionary, the lack of understanding persists.

What is paraphysics? By ESP do you mean extra-sensory perception? There is as of yet no credible evidence for the existence of such a phenomenon.

I regretfully submit that I do in fact understand what attributes are and suggest that maybe you're misunderstanding me. So far you've already declared several attributes of God but seem to be unaware of it. I'm just interested in knowing what God's attributes are and how you know them, but you insist on going into this red herring distinction between "is" and "has." I've already understood your distinction, but the fact of the matter is that there are still attributes of God in order for God to exist at all. So what are they, and how do you know what they are? (If you say scriptures, how do you know that those scriptures are true when they say so?)

 

[Meow Mix]

What do you mean by "contradictory attributes?" Is it the same as negative attributes? HaRambam says that one takes a step closer to the knowledge of God as he approaches Him through negative attributes. For example, to say that God is NOT corporeal is a negative attribute. It means, we are a step closer to the knowldge of God. Logically, God is Incorporeal. To say that God is NOT temporary, is a negative attribute. It means, we are another step closer to the kowledge of God. Logically, God is eternal. To say that God does NOT move is a negative attribute. It means, we have reached a third step closer to the knowledge of God. Logically God is not an accident of matter or matter itself; or even part of the universe. Nu! What do you mean by contradictory attributes?

Negative attribution, or the via negativa, is only partially useful in describing something. For instance, if we follow via negativa by fiat to the end we end up with something that's indistinguishable from nothing: Nothing is also not corporeal, nothing also doesn't move, nothing is also not temporary.

There must still be some positive attribution, in other words, otherwise you're just describing nothing.

 

[ellenjanuary]

I have no idea of what you are talking about!

Many times, neither do I.

But I can clearly state, for the record; there is tao, and I naturally align with tao.

But what is Taoism?

 

[Ben Masada]

Negative attribution, or the via negativa, is only partially useful in describing something. For instance, if we follow via negativa by fiat to the end we end up with something that's indistinguishable from nothing: Nothing is also not corporeal, nothing also doesn't move, nothing is also not temporary.

There must still be some positive attribution, in other words, otherwise you're just describing nothing.

In my class of Philosophy at the University, my Professor would call God the Great Nothing. If this is not what you mean, do you subscribe to the tenets of some other atheists who assert that the universe has come out of nothing, or that it has always been there without a beginning and without an end? Eternal as the God I believe?