SmokeAndMirrors
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 18,282
- Reaction score
- 16,154
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
thanks ...This is a question for atheists who agree that there is no God
thanks ...This is a question for atheists who agree that there is no God
False. These are logical contradictions.According to definition, the answer to all 3 questions is yes.
What is to prevent a human being from obtaining equal power over time? What would be the difference between an alien life form such as "Q" from Star Trek and a God? At what point do you have to stop considering it a "god" and consider it just another life form?Best to think of it as "As powerful as is possible". Most gods are attributed some measure of power. If the term causes a problem then "Extremely powerful" would be fine. "Really really good at hiding" would suffice but it wouldn't be much of a god if that's all they had.
Better question.. what is the difference between an un-perceivable thing and a non-existent thing. If it's "existence" has no registerable impact on any other thing in our reality can you even consider it to be real? Even if you thought you could would it be enough to justify calling it a god?But how can you argue that everything is perceivable?
Do you know the area of a circle with a radius of 5?But you have to pass a very high standard to "Know" something with 100% surety.
No, but when a person tells you about a thing, and then makes up a whole bunch of ridiculous excuses for why you cannot perceive evidence of that thing's existence. It seems pretty clear and obvious that they are just making up the concept of it and it is not actually real so why bother giving even a sliver of credibility?Not sure what your point is here.... Are you saying I should instead take the position that only things for which I've seen evidence for are possible?
False. These are logical contradictions.
What is to prevent a human being from obtaining equal power over time? What would be the difference between an alien life form such as "Q" from Star Trek and a God? At what point do you have to stop considering it a "god" and consider it just another life form?
Better question.. what is the difference between an un-perceivable thing and a non-existent thing. If it's "existence" has no registerable impact on any other thing in our reality can you even consider it to be real? Even if you thought you could would it be enough to justify calling it a god?
I'm not necessarily arguing that everything is perceivable, I'm arguing that everything which could reasonably be construed as a god is perceivable. If it is not perceivable then it registers no impact on our reality. If it registers no impact on reality then it really shouldn't be considered real in the first place. Being real is a pretty low bar. If it is debatable whether something can even pass that test then it would seem ridiculous to give it a status such as god.
Essentially I believe that given a reasonable definition of god that I would agree with there can be no being imagined that is not a logical contradiction of itself or of the very definition of a god. My definition of a god would be as follows....
"An intelligence of supernatural power that created and or regularly influences our universe and judges the actions of those beings within it."
Certainly a being that regularly influences our world would have to be perceivable in some way. Particular if it's doing so based on the actions of the people living in it.
Do you know the area of a circle with a radius of 5?
No, but when a person tells you about a thing, and then makes up a whole bunch of ridiculous excuses for why you cannot perceive evidence of that thing's existence. It seems pretty clear and obvious that they are just making up the concept of it and it is not actually real so why bother giving even a sliver of credibility?
Wouldn't it have been easier to just say, "No, I am not certain?"
I am certain. As certain as anyone can be about anything.
False. These are logical contradictions.
What is to prevent a human being from obtaining equal power over time? What would be the difference between an alien life form such as "Q" from Star Trek and a God? At what point do you have to stop considering it a "god" and consider it just another life form?
Better question.. what is the difference between an un-perceivable thing and a non-existent thing. If it's "existence" has no registerable impact on any other thing in our reality can you even consider it to be real? Even if you thought you could would it be enough to justify calling it a god?
I'm not necessarily arguing that everything is perceivable, I'm arguing that everything which could reasonably be construed as a god is perceivable. If it is not perceivable then it registers no impact on our reality. If it registers no impact on reality then it really shouldn't be considered real in the first place. Being real is a pretty low bar. If it is debatable whether something can even pass that test then it would seem ridiculous to give it a status such as god.
Essentially I believe that given a reasonable definition of god that I would agree with there can be no being imagined that is not a logical contradiction of itself or of the very definition of a god. My definition of a god would be as follows....
"An intelligence of supernatural power that regularly influences our universe and judges the actions of those beings within it."
Certainly a being that regularly influences our world would have to be perceivable in some way. Particular if it's doing so based on the actions of the people living in it.
Do you know the area of a circle with a radius of 5?
No, but when a person tells you about a thing, and then makes up a whole bunch of ridiculous excuses for why you cannot perceive evidence of that thing's existence. It seems pretty clear and obvious that they are just making up the concept of it and it is not actually real so why bother giving even a sliver of credibility?
You are not certain at all...and you certainly are not as certain as you are that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10.
But it is fun to compare the people who are certain there are no gods...with the people who are certain there is at least one.
Brings a broad smile to my face.
They point fingers at each other, not realizing they both make the same mistake. At times, it can be amusing.
Sure I am. For starters 2 of what? What do you have 4 of? Numbers are abstract concepts that do not themselves exist unless you have something to count. No two things are exactly identical so I cannot say 2 of anything exists unless you want to call them close enough.You are not certain at all...and you certainly are not as certain as you are that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10.
Sure I am. For starters 2 of what? What do you have 4 of? Numbers are abstract concepts that do not themselves exist unless you have something to count. No two things are exactly identical so I cannot say 2 of anything exists unless you want to call them close enough.
Second, based upon what I would consider to be reasonably construed as a "god", and based upon the what I would consider to be reasonably construed as "existing" the two are logically incompatible.
1) If a god existed it would have a great impact on our world.
2) Everything that would have a great impact on our world would be perceivable.
3) God is not perceivable.
Therefore god has no impact on our world.
Therefore god does not exist.
If you're going to attempt to discuss whether something exists or not one must first have a solid definition. Agnostics seem to hide in a world where god can be defined as virtually anything. In that world I would say that god not only can exist, but must exist. I can define myself as a god, and certainly I believe in myself. So what is a god?You seek to define something that has never really been defined well outside of referencing whatever religions god(s). Where do you draw the line between exceptional human / god / alien? The common theme seems to be some greater being that can affect the world in ways humans are unable to, which is a terribly vague definition, but honestly, it doesn't matter in regards to this discussion unless you're trying to manipulate definitions to reach your desired conclusion.
The difference you seem to think there is between something that does not exist and something that is imperceptible is itself imperceptible and therefore does not exist.non-existent = does not exist (and thus can not be perceived)
imperceptible = exists, but can not be perceived
Yes, it does. In order to affect reality you must change the state of reality. If no change in the state of reality can be perceived then there has been no change.Just because something is imperceptible does not mean it has no affect on reality.
This is irrelevant we're not limiting ourselves to what could be perceived with modern technology.And it's somewhat relative, imperceptible to humans (and their technology) is different than outright imperceptible.
Because that is part of what makes a god in the first place.Why would a god have to regularly influence our universe and judge the actions of those beings within it?
No, I would actually not consider that a god. I can create a world in Sim City and then pass out and leave it running. Am I a god?If something created everything and went to sleep, not caring what happened afterwards, it can't be a god?
Even humans in the Matrix like Neo perceived something wrong with their world. They couldn't put their finger on what it was without perspective, but they still perceived things that didn't make sense.As Lawrence Fishburn told us, electrical impulses interpreted by the brain. This is perception. It's not so far fetched a god could interfere with those very electrical impulses.
You have made a series of assumptions, and drawn conclusions as if those assumptions were true.
1) baseless assumption - A god may exist that has nothing to do with our world (assuming you mean earth). If you meant universe, perhaps its off in a corner minding its own business for a few millennia.
2) baseless assumption - the impact might be perceivable, but that doesn't mean we would see god there. Maybe we only see a function of the laws of physics and nothing that makes think "that must be god doing that"
3) baseless assumption - You might have seen god disguised as a human for all you know. You would have no chance of seeing through such a deception. Perhaps god has the ability to influence the electrical impulses that your brain interprets as sensory data and simply edited himself out of your perception.
Sure I am. For starters 2 of what? What do you have 4 of? Numbers are abstract concepts that do not themselves exist unless you have something to count. No two things are exactly identical so I cannot say 2 of anything exists unless you want to call them close enough.
Second, based upon what I would consider to be reasonably construed as a "god", and based upon the what I would consider to be reasonably construed as "existing" the two are logically incompatible.
If a god existed it would have a great impact on our world.
Everything that would have a great impact on our world would be perceivable.
God is not perceivable.
Therefore god has no impact on our world.
Therefore god does not exist.
No, it's really not. Both PI and 2 are symbols to represent an abstract concept that cannot be absolutely defined. No two objects are exactly identical. We consider them close enough to say that there are two of them, but in reality on some level they are all slightly different.In the way I have been using the term "know", no I do not. I'll gloss over the fact you didn't include any units. But Pi does not translate into decimal perfectly. So I can give you a (very) close approximation, but no I can not give you the exact value you asked for, because it can not be calculated or expressed in decimal.
To simplify though, and possibly clarify your point, I do know that 2 + 2 = 4. That's simple math.
And what you need to acknowledge is that by your extreme definition of the word "know" you really don't know anything other than maybe "I think therefore I am." All other knowledge amounts to things that you might consider very very likely. Agnostics try and play the bad calculus problem of claiming that if you keep getting half way closer to knowing the truth than you can't ever get there. Obviously that is not really the truth, it's just silly theory.you need to acknowledge the difference between knowing something, thinking something is very very likely, and not having enough information to even guess (ignorance).
Q from Star Trek could also be alive and well living in the sun. The sun could just be a screen on a computer with a kid sitting inside playing sim city. Are they fit to be called gods?God could be alive and well living in the heart of the sun, still resting from creating everything. We could be the spawn of the flying spaghetti monster. Nebulae could be the divine version of a summer home. None of its very likely, but it's all possible from where we're standing.
Spok once said, in ST4 or 5 iirc, that he didn't know what happened, all he had was a theory which fit the facts. When the facts are few, many theories fit. But it would be foolish to rule any out based solely on probability. Find more facts, rule theories out, and maybe you'll find the truth.
Earth or Universe are irrelevant. Having an impact on our world is essential to the notion of a god. Even in your vague definition you admitted as much. What you seem to want to call a god is nothing of importance at all. You can't just go around calling anything you want a god. I have defined what criteria a thing would need to meet in order for me to consider it a god. Nothing of that sort exists, and I can say that with confidence.You have made a series of assumptions, and drawn conclusions as if those assumptions were true.
1) baseless assumption - A god may exist that has nothing to do with our world (assuming you mean earth). If you meant universe, perhaps its off in a corner minding its own business for a few millennia.
A function of the law of physics would be consistent. It would not indicate an outside force manipulating individual events.2) baseless assumption - the impact might be perceivable, but that doesn't mean we would see god there. Maybe we only see a function of the laws of physics and nothing that makes think "that must be god doing that"
3) baseless assumption - You might have seen god disguised as a human for all you know. You would have no chance of seeing through such a deception. Perhaps god has the ability to influence the electrical impulses that your brain interprets as sensory data and simply edited himself out of your perception.
Cool, MrWonka. I now realize I shoulda said, "Why not just say that you are not certain if any gods exist, but you do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge it?"
Why don't you just say that you do in fact believe in god since you seem perfectly fine with allowing any old thing to be considered one.
That makes the existence of god not only possible, but certain.
In order to keep claiming that a god might exists you have defined god to be no different than an alien. I'd say aliens not only might exist, but it's a virtual certainty that they do.
No, you seem to want to refuse to define what a god is. That is very different that claim to not guess whether they exist or not.I decline to guess about something like whether there are gods or not.
Your refusal to define what a god is allows for god to be defined in any way shape or form. Given that god can be any thing, then obviously god must exist.If my saying I do not know if gods exist or not makes the existence of gods a certainty...then it is certain there are gods.
No, you seem to want to refuse to define what a god is. That is very different that claim to not guess whether they exist or not.
Your refusal to define what a god is allows for god to be defined in any way shape or form. Given that god can be any thing, then obviously god must exist.
Just so you are aware, Frank hasn't been around for a while because the same crap he is posting now was torn apart by us. He has done the usual fundagelical thing of having all his crap refuted but, then just asserting it again anyway. See threads past and you will see the future of this thread.No, you seem to want to refuse to define what a god is. That is very different that claim to not guess whether they exist or not.
Your refusal to define what a god is allows for god to be defined in any way shape or form. Given that god can be any thing, then obviously god must exist.
No, it's really not. Both PI and 2 are symbols to represent an abstract concept that cannot be absolutely defined. No two objects are exactly identical. We consider them close enough to say that there are two of them, but in reality on some level they are all slightly different.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?