Religions > Atheism > ** Losing Maddy for ever 'would test our faith' <= superstitious imbeciles! **
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"¥ UltraMan ¥" |
| Date: |
16 Jun 2007 12:24:20 AM |
| Object: |
** Losing Maddy for ever 'would test our faith' <= superstitious imbeciles! ** |
Losing Maddy for ever 'would test our faith'
By Richard Edwards in Praia da Luz
Last Updated: 1:23am BST 16/06/2007
The parents of Madeleine McCann said yesterday that their Roman
Catholic faith would be "severely tested" if their daughter was not returned
safe and well.
Gerry and Kate McCann have relied heavily on prayer to help them
survive the ordeal of Madeleine's disappearance which has now moved into a
sixth week.
They have visited Portugal's holy shrine at Fatima and met the Pope in
Rome. But Mr McCann said yesterday the prospect of the four-year-old not
coming home would stretch their belief.
In an interview with The Tablet, a Catholic newspaper, Mr McCann said:
"If we don't get Madeleine back alive and well, I am sure our faith will be
severely tested. At the end of it, we will still have our faith and we will
also have comfort that Madeleine will be looked after."
Mrs McCann added: "I have felt guilty asking, 'Will this make or break
my faith?' You could argue that what happened in the first place could make
or break your faith and it hasn't. It's done the opposite. It has given us
hope and strength."
advertisement
Mr McCann also told of an "extraordinary experience" inside the church
in Praia da Luz within days of Madeleine's disappearance which inspired him
to launch the global campaign to find his daughter.
He said: "I had this mental image of being in a tunnel and instead of
the light at the end of the tunnel being extremely narrow and a distant
spot, the light opened up and the tunnel got wider and wider and went in
many different directions.
"I can't say it was a vision because I am not clear what a vision is
but I had a mental image and it certainly helped me decide. I became a man
possessed that night. The next day I was up at dawn, making phone calls."
Yesterday police ruled out claims that Madeleine was buried in
scrubland nine miles from where she was abducted.
A letter and two maps had been sent to the Dutch newspaper De
Telegraaf claiming to pinpoint the area where the child was buried "under
branches and rocks".
Yesterday around 30 beat officers and four sniffer dogs moved into the
hamlet of Canafechal, near Odiaxere, in southern Portugal. They were
accompanied by 20 detectives from the Judicial Police.
The search was called off shortly after 9.30am.
.
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
10 Jul 2007 08:29:39 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6suv8$gut$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6rbdb$kom$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6qgnk$m80$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:KYCdnbrj8Pc3cBLbnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@comcast.com...
Scott wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f5n1d6$cf8$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
There is an alternative, that all these positions are nonsense.
The atheist, agnostic and religious view is wrong. Arguing about
the truth of the 'proposition' that 'there exists a transcendent,
[ie not just another name for some tangible phenomena like the
Sun], god', is equivalent to arguing whether 'green ideas sleep
furiously or not'. It is not even a valid proposition, so to
argue whether it is true or not is rather pointless.
Theological noncognitivism.
So the Agnostic (or Ignostic if you prefer) is correct .. we don't
know .. an we can go further and say we cannot know.
No the agnostic is wrong. The correct answer to the 'question' "Do
green ideas sleep furiously?" is not "we don't know" nor is it "we
cannot know", because both of these responses imply there could be
a valid answer. The correct answer is "the proposition is
nonsensical, it is not a valid question".
That agnostic is correct .. if we cannot know, then we do not know.
Nonsense it is meaningless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
Yes .. it is .. and if its meaningless.. then we do not and cannot know
if it is correct.
No no no. It does not even qualify as a proposition so you are in error
to even consider applying a truth value to it.
I'm not applying a true value to it. Sipp is when he claims gods are
impossible
But you are wrong to think that offers any evidence for an agnostic
position. The agnostic is implicitly implying that a truth value might be
assigned to it but just doesn't know which one. That is an untenable
position.
The little-a agnostic position is that we don't or cannot know. if god is
not well defined, we cannot know.
A conventional Christian would have little trouble coming up with a definition
of the Christian God. The problem is 'God' ends up as a metaphysical term. as a
result any sentence which purports to describe the nature of such a
transcendent God can possess no literal significance.
So it is compatible with the agnostic position.
It is also compatible with the Agnostic position (Huxley). if there is no
logical argument or proof for something, then you do not hold it as true.
There can be no logical argument or proof for something ildefined, so you do
not hold it as true.
[snip]
Its really such a vague area, with vague definitions .. so any
definitive answer would be wrong.
It appears you are saying the same as I am above. Yes?
No.
In what way do you differ?
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average theist would go
along with. Then the statement 'God exists' is not a valid proposition. It is a
meaningless utterance, incapable in principle of being true or false. It is not
simply a definitional short coming which causes this, it is the nature of the
Christian definition of God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the proposition was either true
or false we just don't know which.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
11 Jul 2007 02:32:56 AM |
|
|
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f71br7$9lq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average theist would go
along with. Then the statement 'God exists' is not a valid proposition. It
is a meaningless utterance, incapable in principle of being true or false.
It is not simply a definitional short coming which causes this, it is the
nature of the Christian definition of God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the proposition was either
true or false we just don't know which.
Not necessarily. it depends on the proposition. All agnostic will not
accept something as true (or false) unless it can be proven true (or false).
If it is a nonsense proposition, then it is neither.
The problem that you seem to be putting forward is more with the word
'exists' .. what does it mean for something to exist. If god is some being
outside our physical universe, then can it be said to exist? If it is
outside objective reality, can it be objectively real? Can you say concepts
exist, like "justice" or "honour" or "love"?
So, as I and others have said before, the problem is not just with defining
what one means by 'god', but defining what one means by 'exists'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
11 Jul 2007 05:41:00 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f71br7$9lq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average theist would go
along with. Then the statement 'God exists' is not a valid proposition. It
is a meaningless utterance, incapable in principle of being true or false.
It is not simply a definitional short coming which causes this, it is the
nature of the Christian definition of God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the proposition was either
true or false we just don't know which.
Not necessarily. it depends on the proposition.
The proposition concerns the existence of the Christian God. Unless you are
using a different definition of the word 'agnostic' I can assure you agnostics
believe God either exists or doesn't exist. That is probably because they have
not thought carefully enough about the proposition.
All agnostic will not
accept something as true (or false) unless it can be proven true (or false).
If it is a nonsense proposition, then it is neither.
Yes - and the proposition is indeed nonsense as was shown in 'Language Truth
and Logic' by A J Ayer.
The problem that you seem to be putting forward is more with the word
'exists' .. what does it mean for something to exist. If god is some being
outside our physical universe, then can it be said to exist? If it is
outside objective reality, can it be objectively real?
Of course not, it is nonsense.
Can you say concepts
exist, like "justice" or "honour" or "love"?
Yes. [See A J Ayer 'The problem of knowledge']
So, as I and others have said before, the problem is not just with defining
what one means by 'god', but defining what one means by 'exists'.
No, there is no problem with defining existence. If however you start by
insisting that 'God exists' is in some way a meaningful statement then you end
up with a philosophy full of self-contradictions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
15 Jul 2007 03:11:33 AM |
|
|
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f73mar$qac$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f71br7$9lq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average theist would
go along with. Then the statement 'God exists' is not a valid
proposition. It is a meaningless utterance, incapable in principle of
being true or false. It is not simply a definitional short coming which
causes this, it is the nature of the Christian definition of God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the proposition was
either true or false we just don't know which.
Not necessarily. it depends on the proposition.
The proposition concerns the existence of the Christian God. Unless you
are using a different definition of the word 'agnostic' I can assure you
agnostics believe God either exists or doesn't exist. That is probably
because they have not thought carefully enough about the proposition.
All agnostic will not
accept something as true (or false) unless it can be proven true (or
false).
If it is a nonsense proposition, then it is neither.
Yes - and the proposition is indeed nonsense as was shown in 'Language
Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer.
The problem that you seem to be putting forward is more with the word
'exists' .. what does it mean for something to exist. If god is some
being outside our physical universe, then can it be said to exist? If it
is outside objective reality, can it be objectively real?
Of course not, it is nonsense.
Can you say concepts exist, like "justice" or "honour" or "love"?
Yes. [See A J Ayer 'The problem of knowledge']
So, as I and others have said before, the problem is not just with
defining what one means by 'god', but defining what one means by
'exists'.
No, there is no problem with defining existence. If however you start by
insisting that 'God exists' is in some way a meaningful statement then
you end up with a philosophy full of self-contradictions.
And hence the ignostic position
You seem to be arguing against me when I have the same position that you are
taking. That seems rather futile.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
17 Jul 2007 07:26:18 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f73mar$qac$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f71br7$9lq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average theist would
go along with. Then the statement 'God exists' is not a valid
proposition. It is a meaningless utterance, incapable in principle of
being true or false. It is not simply a definitional short coming which
causes this, it is the nature of the Christian definition of God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the proposition was
either true or false we just don't know which.
Not necessarily. it depends on the proposition.
The proposition concerns the existence of the Christian God. Unless you
are using a different definition of the word 'agnostic' I can assure you
agnostics believe God either exists or doesn't exist. That is probably
because they have not thought carefully enough about the proposition.
All agnostic will not
accept something as true (or false) unless it can be proven true (or
false).
If it is a nonsense proposition, then it is neither.
Yes - and the proposition is indeed nonsense as was shown in 'Language
Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer.
The problem that you seem to be putting forward is more with the word
'exists' .. what does it mean for something to exist. If god is some
being outside our physical universe, then can it be said to exist? If it
is outside objective reality, can it be objectively real?
Of course not, it is nonsense.
Can you say concepts exist, like "justice" or "honour" or "love"?
Yes. [See A J Ayer 'The problem of knowledge']
So, as I and others have said before, the problem is not just with
defining what one means by 'god', but defining what one means by
'exists'.
No, there is no problem with defining existence. If however you start by
insisting that 'God exists' is in some way a meaningful statement then
you end up with a philosophy full of self-contradictions.
And hence the ignostic position
You seem to be arguing against me when I have the same position that you are
taking. That seems rather futile.
You don't appear to be ignostic, in fact you seem to be agnostic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
17 Jul 2007 05:57:15 PM |
|
|
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7icih$4m0$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f73mar$qac$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f71br7$9lq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average theist
would go along with. Then the statement 'God exists' is not a valid
proposition. It is a meaningless utterance, incapable in principle of
being true or false. It is not simply a definitional short coming
which causes this, it is the nature of the Christian definition of
God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the proposition was
either true or false we just don't know which.
Not necessarily. it depends on the proposition.
The proposition concerns the existence of the Christian God. Unless you
are using a different definition of the word 'agnostic' I can assure you
agnostics believe God either exists or doesn't exist. That is probably
because they have not thought carefully enough about the proposition.
All agnostic will not
accept something as true (or false) unless it can be proven true (or
false).
If it is a nonsense proposition, then it is neither.
Yes - and the proposition is indeed nonsense as was shown in 'Language
Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer.
The problem that you seem to be putting forward is more with the word
'exists' .. what does it mean for something to exist. If god is some
being outside our physical universe, then can it be said to exist? If
it is outside objective reality, can it be objectively real?
Of course not, it is nonsense.
Can you say concepts exist, like "justice" or "honour" or "love"?
Yes. [See A J Ayer 'The problem of knowledge']
So, as I and others have said before, the problem is not just with
defining what one means by 'god', but defining what one means by
'exists'.
No, there is no problem with defining existence. If however you start by
insisting that 'God exists' is in some way a meaningful statement then
you end up with a philosophy full of self-contradictions.
And hence the ignostic position
You seem to be arguing against me when I have the same position that you
are taking. That seems rather futile.
You don't appear to be ignostic, in fact you seem to be agnostic.
It is quite possible to be both .. an Agnostic says they only belief things
when there is proof / evidence for that .. someone agnostic says they don't
know or that one cannot know .. and the ignostic (noncognitivist) says the
question has no meaning and so you can't know. One can have all those
positions .. depending on the particular definitions and cases being
discussed .. one can even have a position that some gods exist/existed with
some not-unreasonable definitions of what that means (eg. 'God' can be
defined as a title, or defined as something that is worshipped; pharaohs
were given the title god and worshipped, and they existed, so that
particular god (with that definition) existed). In general, though, the
simple "do gods exists" question is just too poorly defined to be answered.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
17 Jul 2007 07:08:39 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7icih$4m0$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f73mar$qac$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f71br7$9lq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average theist
would go along with. Then the statement 'God exists' is not a valid
proposition. It is a meaningless utterance, incapable in principle of
being true or false. It is not simply a definitional short coming
which causes this, it is the nature of the Christian definition of
God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the proposition was
either true or false we just don't know which.
Not necessarily. it depends on the proposition.
The proposition concerns the existence of the Christian God. Unless you
are using a different definition of the word 'agnostic' I can assure you
agnostics believe God either exists or doesn't exist. That is probably
because they have not thought carefully enough about the proposition.
All agnostic will not
accept something as true (or false) unless it can be proven true (or
false).
If it is a nonsense proposition, then it is neither.
Yes - and the proposition is indeed nonsense as was shown in 'Language
Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer.
The problem that you seem to be putting forward is more with the word
'exists' .. what does it mean for something to exist. If god is some
being outside our physical universe, then can it be said to exist? If
it is outside objective reality, can it be objectively real?
Of course not, it is nonsense.
Can you say concepts exist, like "justice" or "honour" or "love"?
Yes. [See A J Ayer 'The problem of knowledge']
So, as I and others have said before, the problem is not just with
defining what one means by 'god', but defining what one means by
'exists'.
No, there is no problem with defining existence. If however you start by
insisting that 'God exists' is in some way a meaningful statement then
you end up with a philosophy full of self-contradictions.
And hence the ignostic position
You seem to be arguing against me when I have the same position that you
are taking. That seems rather futile.
You don't appear to be ignostic, in fact you seem to be agnostic.
It is quite possible to be both .. an Agnostic says they only belief things
when there is proof / evidence for that .. someone agnostic says they don't
know or that one cannot know .. and the ignostic (noncognitivist) says the
question has no meaning and so you can't know.
No, that's a slight misstatement. The ignostic doesn't say "question has no
meaning and so you can't know", they say "question has no meaning". The idea of
knowing or not knowing doesn't get off the ground, it's nonsense.
One can have all those
positions .. depending on the particular definitions and cases being
discussed ..
You can't simultaneously hold an ignostic and agnostic position for the same
entity. The agnostic admits the question of existence to be a valid one whereas
the ignostic doesn't.
one can even have a position that some gods exist/existed with
some not-unreasonable definitions of what that means (eg. 'God' can be
defined as a title, or defined as something that is worshipped; pharaohs
were given the title god and worshipped, and they existed, so that
particular god (with that definition) existed). In general, though, the
simple "do gods exists" question is just too poorly defined to be answered.
It is usually phrased as 'does God exist' and is normally understood as meaning
the conventional Christian definition of God. Why pretend it's some other
question being asked, turning the whole discussion into one of semantics, when
there is a perfectly well understood normal meaning for the question?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
18 Jul 2007 12:17:33 AM |
|
|
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7jlnf$49d$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7icih$4m0$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f73mar$qac$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f71br7$9lq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average theist
would go along with. Then the statement 'God exists' is not a valid
proposition. It is a meaningless utterance, incapable in principle
of being true or false. It is not simply a definitional short coming
which causes this, it is the nature of the Christian definition of
God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the proposition was
either true or false we just don't know which.
Not necessarily. it depends on the proposition.
The proposition concerns the existence of the Christian God. Unless
you are using a different definition of the word 'agnostic' I can
assure you agnostics believe God either exists or doesn't exist. That
is probably because they have not thought carefully enough about the
proposition.
All agnostic will not
accept something as true (or false) unless it can be proven true (or
false).
If it is a nonsense proposition, then it is neither.
Yes - and the proposition is indeed nonsense as was shown in 'Language
Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer.
The problem that you seem to be putting forward is more with the word
'exists' .. what does it mean for something to exist. If god is some
being outside our physical universe, then can it be said to exist?
If it is outside objective reality, can it be objectively real?
Of course not, it is nonsense.
Can you say concepts exist, like "justice" or "honour" or "love"?
Yes. [See A J Ayer 'The problem of knowledge']
So, as I and others have said before, the problem is not just with
defining what one means by 'god', but defining what one means by
'exists'.
No, there is no problem with defining existence. If however you start
by insisting that 'God exists' is in some way a meaningful statement
then you end up with a philosophy full of self-contradictions.
And hence the ignostic position
You seem to be arguing against me when I have the same position that
you are taking. That seems rather futile.
You don't appear to be ignostic, in fact you seem to be agnostic.
It is quite possible to be both .. an Agnostic says they only belief
things when there is proof / evidence for that .. someone agnostic says
they don't know or that one cannot know .. and the ignostic
(noncognitivist) says the question has no meaning and so you can't know.
No, that's a slight misstatement. The ignostic doesn't say "question has
no meaning and so you can't know", they say "question has no meaning". The
idea of knowing or not knowing doesn't get off the ground, it's nonsense.
I think you're being rather pedantic there .. if the question has no meaning
you cannot know the answer to it.
One can have all those positions .. depending on the particular
definitions and cases being discussed ..
You can't simultaneously hold an ignostic and agnostic position for the
same entity. The agnostic admits the question of existence to be a valid
one whereas the ignostic doesn't.
Possibly .. I've never seen that as any part of a description of the
agnostic position
one can even have a position that some gods exist/existed with some
not-unreasonable definitions of what that means (eg. 'God' can be defined
as a title, or defined as something that is worshipped; pharaohs were
given the title god and worshipped, and they existed, so that particular
god (with that definition) existed). In general, though, the simple "do
gods exists" question is just too poorly defined to be answered.
It is usually phrased as 'does God exist' and is normally understood as
meaning the conventional Christian definition of God.
That's a rather limited defintion .. there is nothing particular 'important'
about the christian God. It applies equally to every other god for every
other religion.
Why pretend it's some other question being asked,
I'm not. Athesm and Theism is not a bout JUST the christian god .. why are
you pretending agnosticism and ignosticim are?
turning the whole discussion into one of semantics, when there is a
perfectly well understood normal meaning for the question?
I think you're the one getting stuck on semantics here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "° Shanghai Lil °" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
18 Jul 2007 01:59:02 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7jlnf$49d$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7icih$4m0$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f73mar$qac$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f71br7$9lq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average
theist would go along with. Then the statement 'God exists' is
not a valid proposition. It is a meaningless utterance,
incapable in principle of being true or false. It is not
simply a definitional short coming which causes this, it is
the nature of the Christian definition of God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the
proposition was either true or false we just don't know which.
Not necessarily. it depends on the proposition.
The proposition concerns the existence of the Christian God.
Unless you are using a different definition of the word
'agnostic' I can assure you agnostics believe God either exists
or doesn't exist. That is probably because they have not thought
carefully enough about the proposition.
All agnostic will not
accept something as true (or false) unless it can be proven
true (or false).
If it is a nonsense proposition, then it is neither.
Yes - and the proposition is indeed nonsense as was shown in
'Language Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer.
The problem that you seem to be putting forward is more with
the word 'exists' .. what does it mean for something to exist. If
god is some being outside our physical universe, then can it
be said to exist? If it is outside objective reality, can it be
objectively real?
Of course not, it is nonsense.
Can you say concepts exist, like "justice" or "honour" or
"love"?
Yes. [See A J Ayer 'The problem of knowledge']
So, as I and others have said before, the problem is not just
with defining what one means by 'god', but defining what one
means by 'exists'.
No, there is no problem with defining existence. If however you
start by insisting that 'God exists' is in some way a meaningful
statement then you end up with a philosophy full of
self-contradictions.
And hence the ignostic position
You seem to be arguing against me when I have the same position
that you are taking. That seems rather futile.
You don't appear to be ignostic, in fact you seem to be agnostic.
It is quite possible to be both .. an Agnostic says they only belief
things when there is proof / evidence for that .. someone agnostic
says they don't know or that one cannot know .. and the ignostic
(noncognitivist) says the question has no meaning and so you can't
know.
No, that's a slight misstatement. The ignostic doesn't say "question
has no meaning and so you can't know", they say "question has no
meaning". The idea of knowing or not knowing doesn't get off the
ground, it's nonsense.
I think you're being rather pedantic there .. if the question has no
meaning you cannot know the answer to it.
One can have all those positions .. depending on the particular
definitions and cases being discussed ..
You can't simultaneously hold an ignostic and agnostic position for
the same entity. The agnostic admits the question of existence to be
a valid one whereas the ignostic doesn't.
Possibly .. I've never seen that as any part of a description of the
agnostic position
one can even have a position that some gods exist/existed with some
not-unreasonable definitions of what that means (eg. 'God' can be
defined as a title, or defined as something that is worshipped;
pharaohs were given the title god and worshipped, and they existed,
so that particular god (with that definition) existed). In
general, though, the simple "do gods exists" question is just too
poorly defined to be answered.
It is usually phrased as 'does God exist' and is normally understood
as meaning the conventional Christian definition of God.
That's a rather limited defintion .. there is nothing particular
'important' about the christian God. It applies equally to every
other god for every other religion.
Why pretend it's some other question being asked,
I'm not. Athesm and Theism is not a bout JUST the christian god ..
why are you pretending agnosticism and ignosticim are?
So what god are you positing?
turning the whole discussion into one of semantics, when there is a
perfectly well understood normal meaning for the question?
I think you're the one getting stuck on semantics here.
So what god are you proposing might exist?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
18 Jul 2007 07:22:09 AM |
|
|
"° Shanghai Lil °" <Lilly@Shanghai.cn> wrote in message
news:469dae0b$0$16410$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7jlnf$49d$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7icih$4m0$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f73mar$qac$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f71br7$9lq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average
theist would go along with. Then the statement 'God exists' is
not a valid proposition. It is a meaningless utterance,
incapable in principle of being true or false. It is not
simply a definitional short coming which causes this, it is
the nature of the Christian definition of God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the
proposition was either true or false we just don't know which.
Not necessarily. it depends on the proposition.
The proposition concerns the existence of the Christian God.
Unless you are using a different definition of the word
'agnostic' I can assure you agnostics believe God either exists
or doesn't exist. That is probably because they have not thought
carefully enough about the proposition.
All agnostic will not
accept something as true (or false) unless it can be proven
true (or false).
If it is a nonsense proposition, then it is neither.
Yes - and the proposition is indeed nonsense as was shown in
'Language Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer.
The problem that you seem to be putting forward is more with
the word 'exists' .. what does it mean for something to exist. If
god is some being outside our physical universe, then can it
be said to exist? If it is outside objective reality, can it be
objectively real?
Of course not, it is nonsense.
Can you say concepts exist, like "justice" or "honour" or
"love"?
Yes. [See A J Ayer 'The problem of knowledge']
So, as I and others have said before, the problem is not just
with defining what one means by 'god', but defining what one
means by 'exists'.
No, there is no problem with defining existence. If however you
start by insisting that 'God exists' is in some way a meaningful
statement then you end up with a philosophy full of
self-contradictions.
And hence the ignostic position
You seem to be arguing against me when I have the same position
that you are taking. That seems rather futile.
You don't appear to be ignostic, in fact you seem to be agnostic.
It is quite possible to be both .. an Agnostic says they only belief
things when there is proof / evidence for that .. someone agnostic
says they don't know or that one cannot know .. and the ignostic
(noncognitivist) says the question has no meaning and so you can't
know.
No, that's a slight misstatement. The ignostic doesn't say "question
has no meaning and so you can't know", they say "question has no
meaning". The idea of knowing or not knowing doesn't get off the
ground, it's nonsense.
I think you're being rather pedantic there .. if the question has no
meaning you cannot know the answer to it.
One can have all those positions .. depending on the particular
definitions and cases being discussed ..
You can't simultaneously hold an ignostic and agnostic position for
the same entity. The agnostic admits the question of existence to be
a valid one whereas the ignostic doesn't.
Possibly .. I've never seen that as any part of a description of the
agnostic position
one can even have a position that some gods exist/existed with some
not-unreasonable definitions of what that means (eg. 'God' can be
defined as a title, or defined as something that is worshipped;
pharaohs were given the title god and worshipped, and they existed,
so that particular god (with that definition) existed). In
general, though, the simple "do gods exists" question is just too
poorly defined to be answered.
It is usually phrased as 'does God exist' and is normally understood
as meaning the conventional Christian definition of God.
That's a rather limited defintion .. there is nothing particular
'important' about the christian God. It applies equally to every
other god for every other religion.
Why pretend it's some other question being asked,
I'm not. Athesm and Theism is not a bout JUST the christian god ..
why are you pretending agnosticism and ignosticim are?
So what god are you positing?
None .. why, which is your favorite?
turning the whole discussion into one of semantics, when there is a
perfectly well understood normal meaning for the question?
I think you're the one getting stuck on semantics here.
So what god are you proposing might exist?
Why do you think I'm suggesting any god exists ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "_ Prof. Jonez _" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
18 Jul 2007 07:45:18 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"° Shanghai Lil °" <Lilly@Shanghai.cn> wrote in message
news:469dae0b$0$16410$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7jlnf$49d$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7icih$4m0$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f73mar$qac$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f71br7$9lq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average
theist would go along with. Then the statement 'God exists'
is not a valid proposition. It is a meaningless utterance,
incapable in principle of being true or false. It is not
simply a definitional short coming which causes this, it is
the nature of the Christian definition of God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the
proposition was either true or false we just don't know
which.
Not necessarily. it depends on the proposition.
The proposition concerns the existence of the Christian God.
Unless you are using a different definition of the word
'agnostic' I can assure you agnostics believe God either exists
or doesn't exist. That is probably because they have not
thought carefully enough about the proposition.
All agnostic will not
accept something as true (or false) unless it can be proven
true (or false).
If it is a nonsense proposition, then it is neither.
Yes - and the proposition is indeed nonsense as was shown in
'Language Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer.
The problem that you seem to be putting forward is more with
the word 'exists' .. what does it mean for something to
exist. If god is some being outside our physical universe,
then can it be said to exist? If it is outside objective reality, can
it
be objectively real?
Of course not, it is nonsense.
Can you say concepts exist, like "justice" or "honour" or
"love"?
Yes. [See A J Ayer 'The problem of knowledge']
So, as I and others have said before, the problem is not just
with defining what one means by 'god', but defining what one
means by 'exists'.
No, there is no problem with defining existence. If however you
start by insisting that 'God exists' is in some way a
meaningful statement then you end up with a philosophy full of
self-contradictions.
And hence the ignostic position
You seem to be arguing against me when I have the same position
that you are taking. That seems rather futile.
You don't appear to be ignostic, in fact you seem to be agnostic.
It is quite possible to be both .. an Agnostic says they only
belief things when there is proof / evidence for that .. someone
agnostic says they don't know or that one cannot know .. and the
ignostic (noncognitivist) says the question has no meaning and so
you can't know.
No, that's a slight misstatement. The ignostic doesn't say
"question has no meaning and so you can't know", they say
"question has no meaning". The idea of knowing or not knowing
doesn't get off the ground, it's nonsense.
I think you're being rather pedantic there .. if the question has no
meaning you cannot know the answer to it.
One can have all those positions .. depending on the particular
definitions and cases being discussed ..
You can't simultaneously hold an ignostic and agnostic position for
the same entity. The agnostic admits the question of existence to
be a valid one whereas the ignostic doesn't.
Possibly .. I've never seen that as any part of a description of the
agnostic position
one can even have a position that some gods exist/existed with
some not-unreasonable definitions of what that means (eg. 'God'
can be defined as a title, or defined as something that is
worshipped; pharaohs were given the title god and worshipped, and
they existed, so that particular god (with that definition)
existed). In general, though, the simple "do gods exists"
question is just too poorly defined to be answered.
It is usually phrased as 'does God exist' and is normally
understood as meaning the conventional Christian definition of God.
That's a rather limited defintion .. there is nothing particular
'important' about the christian God. It applies equally to every
other god for every other religion.
Why pretend it's some other question being asked,
I'm not. Athesm and Theism is not a bout JUST the christian god ..
why are you pretending agnosticism and ignosticim are?
So what god are you positing?
None .. why,
So you agree then that there is no god.
which is your favorite?
Favourite what?
turning the whole discussion into one of semantics, when there is a
perfectly well understood normal meaning for the question?
I think you're the one getting stuck on semantics here.
So what god are you proposing might exist?
Why do you think I'm suggesting any god exists ?
So you agree that no god exists.
Glad we finally established that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
19 Jul 2007 12:58:14 AM |
|
|
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:5g7qh8F3enu0bU1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"° Shanghai Lil °" <Lilly@Shanghai.cn> wrote in message
news:469dae0b$0$16410$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7jlnf$49d$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7icih$4m0$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f73mar$qac$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f71br7$9lq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average
theist would go along with. Then the statement 'God exists'
is not a valid proposition. It is a meaningless utterance,
incapable in principle of being true or false. It is not
simply a definitional short coming which causes this, it is
the nature of the Christian definition of God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the
proposition was either true or false we just don't know
which.
Not necessarily. it depends on the proposition.
The proposition concerns the existence of the Christian God.
Unless you are using a different definition of the word
'agnostic' I can assure you agnostics believe God either exists
or doesn't exist. That is probably because they have not
thought carefully enough about the proposition.
All agnostic will not
accept something as true (or false) unless it can be proven
true (or false).
If it is a nonsense proposition, then it is neither.
Yes - and the proposition is indeed nonsense as was shown in
'Language Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer.
The problem that you seem to be putting forward is more with
the word 'exists' .. what does it mean for something to
exist. If god is some being outside our physical universe,
then can it be said to exist? If it is outside objective reality,
can it
be objectively real?
Of course not, it is nonsense.
Can you say concepts exist, like "justice" or "honour" or
"love"?
Yes. [See A J Ayer 'The problem of knowledge']
So, as I and others have said before, the problem is not just
with defining what one means by 'god', but defining what one
means by 'exists'.
No, there is no problem with defining existence. If however you
start by insisting that 'God exists' is in some way a
meaningful statement then you end up with a philosophy full of
self-contradictions.
And hence the ignostic position
You seem to be arguing against me when I have the same position
that you are taking. That seems rather futile.
You don't appear to be ignostic, in fact you seem to be agnostic.
It is quite possible to be both .. an Agnostic says they only
belief things when there is proof / evidence for that .. someone
agnostic says they don't know or that one cannot know .. and the
ignostic (noncognitivist) says the question has no meaning and so
you can't know.
No, that's a slight misstatement. The ignostic doesn't say
"question has no meaning and so you can't know", they say
"question has no meaning". The idea of knowing or not knowing
doesn't get off the ground, it's nonsense.
I think you're being rather pedantic there .. if the question has no
meaning you cannot know the answer to it.
One can have all those positions .. depending on the particular
definitions and cases being discussed ..
You can't simultaneously hold an ignostic and agnostic position for
the same entity. The agnostic admits the question of existence to
be a valid one whereas the ignostic doesn't.
Possibly .. I've never seen that as any part of a description of the
agnostic position
one can even have a position that some gods exist/existed with
some not-unreasonable definitions of what that means (eg. 'God'
can be defined as a title, or defined as something that is
worshipped; pharaohs were given the title god and worshipped, and
they existed, so that particular god (with that definition)
existed). In general, though, the simple "do gods exists"
question is just too poorly defined to be answered.
It is usually phrased as 'does God exist' and is normally
understood as meaning the conventional Christian definition of God.
That's a rather limited defintion .. there is nothing particular
'important' about the christian God. It applies equally to every
other god for every other religion.
Why pretend it's some other question being asked,
I'm not. Athesm and Theism is not a bout JUST the christian god ..
why are you pretending agnosticism and ignosticim are?
So what god are you positing?
None .. why,
So you agree then that there is no god.
I don't know .. why .. do YOU know?
which is your favorite?
Favourite what?
You favorite god
turning the whole discussion into one of semantics, when there is a
perfectly well understood normal meaning for the question?
I think you're the one getting stuck on semantics here.
So what god are you proposing might exist?
Why do you think I'm suggesting any god exists ?
So you agree that no god exists.
Glad we finally established that.
I don't know .. why .. do YOU know?
.
|
|
|
| User: "¥ UltraMan ¥" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
20 Jul 2007 03:42:46 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:5g7qh8F3enu0bU1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"° Shanghai Lil °" <Lilly@Shanghai.cn> wrote in message
news:469dae0b$0$16410$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7jlnf$49d$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f7icih$4m0$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f73mar$qac$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f71br7$9lq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average
theist would go along with. Then the statement 'God exists'
is not a valid proposition. It is a meaningless utterance,
incapable in principle of being true or false. It is not
simply a definitional short coming which causes this, it is
the nature of the Christian definition of God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the
proposition was either true or false we just don't know
which.
Not necessarily. it depends on the proposition.
The proposition concerns the existence of the Christian God.
Unless you are using a different definition of the word
'agnostic' I can assure you agnostics believe God either
exists or doesn't exist. That is probably because they have
not thought carefully enough about the proposition.
All agnostic will not
accept something as true (or false) unless it can be proven
true (or false).
If it is a nonsense proposition, then it is neither.
Yes - and the proposition is indeed nonsense as was shown in
'Language Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer.
The problem that you seem to be putting forward is more with
the word 'exists' .. what does it mean for something to
exist. If god is some being outside our physical universe,
then can it be said to exist? If it is outside objective
reality, can it
be objectively real?
Of course not, it is nonsense.
Can you say concepts exist, like "justice" or "honour" or
"love"?
Yes. [See A J Ayer 'The problem of knowledge']
So, as I and others have said before, the problem is not
just with defining what one means by 'god', but defining
what one means by 'exists'.
No, there is no problem with defining existence. If however
you start by insisting that 'God exists' is in some way a
meaningful statement then you end up with a philosophy full
of self-contradictions.
And hence the ignostic position
You seem to be arguing against me when I have the same
position that you are taking. That seems rather futile.
You don't appear to be ignostic, in fact you seem to be
agnostic.
It is quite possible to be both .. an Agnostic says they only
belief things when there is proof / evidence for that .. someone
agnostic says they don't know or that one cannot know .. and the
ignostic (noncognitivist) says the question has no meaning and
so you can't know.
No, that's a slight misstatement. The ignostic doesn't say
"question has no meaning and so you can't know", they say
"question has no meaning". The idea of knowing or not knowing
doesn't get off the ground, it's nonsense.
I think you're being rather pedantic there .. if the question has
no meaning you cannot know the answer to it.
One can have all those positions .. depending on the particular
definitions and cases being discussed ..
You can't simultaneously hold an ignostic and agnostic position
for the same entity. The agnostic admits the question of
existence to be a valid one whereas the ignostic doesn't.
Possibly .. I've never seen that as any part of a description of
the agnostic position
one can even have a position that some gods exist/existed with
some not-unreasonable definitions of what that means (eg. 'God'
can be defined as a title, or defined as something that is
worshipped; pharaohs were given the title god and worshipped,
and they existed, so that particular god (with that definition)
existed). In general, though, the simple "do gods exists"
question is just too poorly defined to be answered.
It is usually phrased as 'does God exist' and is normally
understood as meaning the conventional Christian definition of
God.
That's a rather limited defintion .. there is nothing particular
'important' about the christian God. It applies equally to every
other god for every other religion.
Why pretend it's some other question being asked,
I'm not. Athesm and Theism is not a bout JUST the christian god
.. why are you pretending agnosticism and ignosticim are?
So what god are you positing?
None .. why,
So you agree then that there is no god.
I don't know .. why .. do YOU know?
You said "none".
which is your favorite?
Favourite what?
You favorite god
So you are positing a god, eh?
turning the whole discussion into one of semantics, when there
is a perfectly well understood normal meaning for the question?
I think you're the one getting stuck on semantics here.
So what god are you proposing might exist?
Why do you think I'm suggesting any god exists ?
So you agree that no god exists.
Glad we finally established that.
I don't know .. why .. do YOU know?
Do you posit a god or not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
21 Jul 2007 12:42:21 AM |
|
|
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in message
news:5gbas8F371tnjU1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:5g7qh8F3enu0bU1@mid.individual.net...
Jeckyl wrote:
"° Shanghai Lil °" <Lilly@Shanghai.cn> wrote in message
news:469dae0b$0$16410$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
I'm not. Athesm and Theism is not a bout JUST the christian god
.. why are you pretending agnosticism and ignosticim are?
So what god are you positing?
None .. why,
So you agree then that there is no god.
I don't know .. why .. do YOU know?
You said "none".
So? That does not mean I am saying that there is no 'god' or 'gods'
(whatever that may actually mean)
which is your favorite?
Favourite what?
You favorite god
So you are positing a god, eh?
What makes you suggest that? I already said I wasn't.
turning the whole discussion into one of semantics, when there
is a perfectly well understood normal meaning for the question?
I think you're the one getting stuck on semantics here.
So what god are you proposing might exist?
Why do you think I'm suggesting any god exists ?
So you agree that no god exists.
Glad we finally established that.
I don't know .. why .. do YOU know?
Do you posit a god or not?
I already answered that .. do you have some problem comprehending a simple
one-word answer?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
11 Jul 2007 12:23:41 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
If god is some being
outside our physical universe ...
*
Fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis.
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one's theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
Typical lame theist tactic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
11 Jul 2007 12:01:44 PM |
|
|
Scott wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6suv8$gut$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6rbdb$kom$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6qgnk$m80$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:KYCdnbrj8Pc3cBLbnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@comcast.com...
Scott wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f5n1d6$cf8$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
There is an alternative, that all these positions are
nonsense. The atheist, agnostic and religious view is wrong.
Arguing about the truth of the 'proposition' that 'there
exists a transcendent, [ie not just another name for some
tangible phenomena like the Sun], god', is equivalent to
arguing whether 'green ideas sleep furiously or not'. It is
not even a valid proposition, so to argue whether it is true
or not is rather pointless.
Theological noncognitivism.
So the Agnostic (or Ignostic if you prefer) is correct .. we
don't know .. an we can go further and say we cannot know.
No the agnostic is wrong. The correct answer to the 'question'
"Do green ideas sleep furiously?" is not "we don't know" nor
is it "we cannot know", because both of these responses imply
there could be a valid answer. The correct answer is "the
proposition is nonsensical, it is not a valid question".
That agnostic is correct .. if we cannot know, then we do not know.
Nonsense it is meaningless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
Yes .. it is .. and if its meaningless.. then we do not and cannot
know if it is correct.
No no no. It does not even qualify as a proposition so you are in
error to even consider applying a truth value to it.
I'm not applying a true value to it. Sipp is when he claims gods
are impossible
But you are wrong to think that offers any evidence for an agnostic
position. The agnostic is implicitly implying that a truth value
might be assigned to it but just doesn't know which one. That is an
untenable position.
The little-a agnostic position is that we don't or cannot know. if
god is not well defined, we cannot know.
A conventional Christian would have little trouble coming up with a
definition of the Christian God. The problem is 'God' ends up as a
metaphysical term. as a result any sentence which purports to describe
the nature of such a transcendent God can possess no literal significance.
So it is compatible with the agnostic position.
It is also compatible with the Agnostic position (Huxley). if there is
no logical argument or proof for something, then you do not hold it as
true. There can be no logical argument or proof for something
ildefined, so you do not hold it as true.
[snip]
Its really such a vague area, with vague definitions .. so any
definitive answer would be wrong.
It appears you are saying the same as I am above. Yes?
No.
In what way do you differ?
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average theist would
go along with. Then the statement 'God exists' is not a valid
proposition. It is a meaningless utterance, incapable in principle of
being true or false. It is not simply a definitional short coming which
causes this, it is the nature of the Christian definition of God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the proposition was
either true or false we just don't know which.
*
Which is wrong because it is just another meaningless metaphysical
proposition, a failed hypothesis. The principle of non-contradiction is
that any MEANINGFUL statement is either true or false, one or the other,
but to be considered a meaningful statement there has to be some way to
know it in the human experience if the proposition were false.
Jack and friends are just trying to get away with the same old lame old
argument from lack of disproof for which theists are famous, that there
might be X because there is no proof their conjecture is false.
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon
was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long
taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be
mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all
its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline
substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantiam_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the
invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks
-- but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his
critics could not prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
11 Jul 2007 07:43:16 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:ELydnRqh8c5kkQjbnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Scott wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6suv8$gut$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6rbdb$kom$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6qgnk$m80$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:KYCdnbrj8Pc3cBLbnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@comcast.com...
Scott wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f5n1d6$cf8$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
There is an alternative, that all these positions are
nonsense. The atheist, agnostic and religious view is wrong.
Arguing about the truth of the 'proposition' that 'there
exists a transcendent, [ie not just another name for some
tangible phenomena like the Sun], god', is equivalent to
arguing whether 'green ideas sleep furiously or not'. It is
not even a valid proposition, so to argue whether it is true
or not is rather pointless.
Theological noncognitivism.
So the Agnostic (or Ignostic if you prefer) is correct .. we
don't know .. an we can go further and say we cannot know.
No the agnostic is wrong. The correct answer to the 'question'
"Do green ideas sleep furiously?" is not "we don't know" nor is
it "we cannot know", because both of these responses imply there
could be a valid answer. The correct answer is "the proposition
is nonsensical, it is not a valid question".
That agnostic is correct .. if we cannot know, then we do not
know.
Nonsense it is meaningless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
Yes .. it is .. and if its meaningless.. then we do not and cannot
know if it is correct.
No no no. It does not even qualify as a proposition so you are in
error to even consider applying a truth value to it.
I'm not applying a true value to it. Sipp is when he claims gods are
impossible
But you are wrong to think that offers any evidence for an agnostic
position. The agnostic is implicitly implying that a truth value might
be assigned to it but just doesn't know which one. That is an untenable
position.
The little-a agnostic position is that we don't or cannot know. if god
is not well defined, we cannot know.
A conventional Christian would have little trouble coming up with a
definition of the Christian God. The problem is 'God' ends up as a
metaphysical term. as a result any sentence which purports to describe
the nature of such a transcendent God can possess no literal
significance.
So it is compatible with the agnostic position.
It is also compatible with the Agnostic position (Huxley). if there is
no logical argument or proof for something, then you do not hold it as
true. There can be no logical argument or proof for something ildefined,
so you do not hold it as true.
[snip]
Its really such a vague area, with vague definitions .. so any
definitive answer would be wrong.
It appears you are saying the same as I am above. Yes?
No.
In what way do you differ?
Use the Christian definition of God - one that the average theist would
go along with. Then the statement 'God exists' is not a valid
proposition. It is a meaningless utterance, incapable in principle of
being true or false. It is not simply a definitional short coming which
causes this, it is the nature of the Christian definition of God.
An agnostic on the other hand would assert that the proposition was
either true or false we just don't know which.
*
Which is wrong because it is just another meaningless metaphysical
proposition, a failed hypothesis. The principle of non-contradiction is
that any MEANINGFUL statement is either true or false, one or the other,
but to be considered a meaningful statement there has to be some way to
know it in the human experience if the proposition were false.
Jack and friends are just trying to get away with the same old lame old
argument from lack of disproof for which theists are famous, that there
might be X because there is no proof their conjecture is false.
So .. if you look in your wallet for a coin with straight edges instead of
round circular edges, and you don't find evidence of them, would you say
"There are no coins with straight edges" or "there might be for all we know,
but I've found no evidence of it".
The ONLY logical answer when there is no evidence for (or against) something
is that we do not know. There might be, there might not be.
That is, of course, assuming that assertion being made is one for which
there can be either a true or false answer.
That means we would need to know what is meant by 'god' and by 'exists'.
[snip same old lame quotes]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
13 Jul 2007 09:32:44 AM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
The ONLY logical answer when there is no evidence for (or against) something
is that we do not know.
*
In this case atheists have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to
produce, moron, only you theists do.
#101 ARGUMENT FROM WHAT JACKAL THINKS AGNOSTICISM IS (BUT HE IS WRONG)
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, there might be a God®.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
15 Jul 2007 03:14:42 AM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:iPadnQmkhu6QEArbnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
The ONLY logical answer when there is no evidence for (or against)
something is that we do not know.
*
In this case atheists have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to
produce, moron, only you theists do.
Strong atheists do, if they wish to proof their position that there is no
god.
Non-strong Atheists and agnostics don't need to proof anything.
#101 ARGUMENT FROM WHAT JACKAL THINKS AGNOSTICISM IS (BUT HE IS WRONG)
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, there might be a God®.
And the same old lies again.
Don't you tire of it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
15 Jul 2007 05:26:26 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:iPadnQmkhu6QEArbnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
The ONLY logical answer when there is no evidence for (or against)
something is that we do not know.
*
In this case atheists have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to
produce, moron, only you theists do.
Strong atheists do
*
NO atheist has anything (any thing) evidence of which to produce in this
case, moron, only theists do. So-called strong atheists have a lack of
belief in gods too. 'Believes there is no god' is just colloquialism for
'has a lack of belief in gods'.
To quote you yourself:
Jeckyl wrote:
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods .. there is nothing that needs
defending.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
15 Jul 2007 10:39:35 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:zqydnXb8rcyOAgfbnZ2dnUVZ_oCmnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:iPadnQmkhu6QEArbnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
The ONLY logical answer when there is no evidence for (or against)
something is that we do not know.
*
In this case atheists have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to
produce, moron, only you theists do.
Strong atheists do
*
NO atheist has anything (any thing) evidence of which to produce in this
case, moron
And that is why the strong atheist position is unsupported and not lgoically
valid .. it is based on a logical fallacy.
So-called strong atheists have a lack of belief in gods too. 'Believes
there is no god' is just colloquialism for 'has a lack of belief in gods'.
No .. it is not. Again more lack of understanding from you.
To quote you yourself:
Jeckyl wrote:
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods .. there is nothing that needs
defending.
That's correct .. strong atheism is MORE than just atheism. . it is a belief
that there are no gods. That claim is not supported by logic.
You're fighting a losing battle sipp .. every post makes you look more of a
fool.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
15 Jul 2007 03:48:40 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
We do not know.
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:iPadnQmkhu6QEArbnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
#101 ARGUMENT FROM WHAT JACKAL THINKS AGNOSTICISM IS (BUT HE IS WRONG)
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, there might be a God®.
And the same old lies
*
Not a lie. Aren't you Jeckyl? Can't you remember what your argument is
from one day to the next? Maybe you don't like having your argument
shown for what it really means? Boo hoo.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: No God® |
15 Jul 2007 10:37:06 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:wpCdna1PkNC1FQfbnZ2dnUVZ_uKknZ2d@comcast.com...
Jeckyl wrote:
We do not know.
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:iPadnQmkhu6QEArbnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
#101 ARGUMENT FROM WHAT JACKAL THINKS AGNOSTICISM IS (BUT HE IS WRONG)
(1) I don't know and you don't know either.
(2) Therefore, there might be a God®.
And the same old lies
*
Not a lie. Aren't you Jeckyl? Can't you remember what your argument is
from one day to the next? Maybe you don't like having your argument shown
for what it really means? Boo hoo.
It means you're an idiot who doesn't understand atheism, agnosticism, or
logic. Guess you must be a theist . you have the main characteristics of
it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: No =?ISO-8859-1?Q?God=AE?= |
12 Jul 2007 12:12:53 PM |
|
|
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:ELydnRqh8c5kkQjbnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Scott wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6suv8$gut$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6rbdb$kom$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f6qgnk$m80$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:KYCdnbrj8Pc3cBLbnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@comcast.com...
Scott wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Scott" <blackhole@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f5n1d6$cf8$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
There is an alternative, that all these positions are
nonsense. The atheist, agnostic and religious view is wrong.
Arguing about the truth of the 'proposition' that 'there
exists a transcendent, [ie not just another name for some
tangible phenomena like the Sun], god', is equivalent to
arguing whether 'green ideas sleep furiously or not'. It is
not even a valid proposition, so to argue whether it is true
or not is rather pointless.
Theological noncognitivism.
| | | | |
