Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Atheist Penelope
Dliessmgg:
--- Quote from: Jeans on 02 Sep 2009, 14:39 ---Indeed - though I expect the argument was made with the Christian God in mind, and being omnipotent/omnipresent/omni-anything-you-care-to-mention is kind of his thing.
--- End quote ---
"Nothing greater" kinda implies omi-anything-ness.
--- Quote from: danman on 02 Sep 2009, 16:39 ---But it boils down to the same. Essentially you define something with a necessary property of existance, and then you assert that it must exist by virtue of its definition, such as a perfect god or a real unicorn.
--- End quote ---
Can you tell me where this necessary property of existance is? It's not like this wants to prove something like a triangle having three angles.
--- Quote from: danman on 02 Sep 2009, 16:39 ---The flaw is the same - your thoughts and definitions have no impact on reality - what existed would continue to do so even without you, and you cannot make something appear simply by defining it as existing.
--- End quote ---
We make it real by thinking about it, because the world is what we think it is.
--- Quote from: danman on 02 Sep 2009, 16:39 ---Also - by existing, i mean manifesting itself in some clear, and verifiable way. Even if your god existed in the sense you jut described , two things could happen A) he would verifiably manifest by some phenomena, then that would be a proof, and the argument is redundant, since better ones abound (like the guy who distinguishes his twins by the fact that the black haired has a pigment mark on her cheek while the blonde one does not)
B) he would not manifest in any such way, and not affect the material world in any way consistently attributable to him, then i am not the least interested in such existance, and for all practical means he does not exist, because such an existance is an empty statement, it implies nothing about the world
--- End quote ---
If you think like that, then you have to dismiss numbers, because they dont manifest. There may be three trees or three mountains, but can you see a three? No, only different symbols for it.
danman:
--- Quote from: Dliessmgg on 02 Sep 2009, 23:43 ---
--- Quote from: danman on 02 Sep 2009, 16:39 ---But it boils down to the same. Essentially you define something with a necessary property of existance, and then you assert that it must exist by virtue of its definition, such as a perfect god or a real unicorn.
--- End quote ---
Can you tell me where this necessary property of existance is? It's not like this wants to prove something like a triangle having three angles.
--- End quote ---
Yes, you said it before. Essentially the argument goes on to (prove) that a perfect god must have the property of existence (much like a real unicorn must have a property of existence).
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: danman on 02 Sep 2009, 16:39 ---The flaw is the same - your thoughts and definitions have no impact on reality - what existed would continue to do so even without you, and you cannot make something appear simply by defining it as existing.
--- End quote ---
We make it real by thinking about it, because the world is what we think it is.
--- End quote ---
I would say we observe and process reality by perceiving it , not make it in our minds
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: danman on 02 Sep 2009, 16:39 ---Also - by existing, i mean manifesting itself in some clear, and verifiable way. Even if your god existed in the sense you jut described , two things could happen A) he would verifiably manifest by some phenomena, then that would be a proof, and the argument is redundant, since better ones abound (like the guy who distinguishes his twins by the fact that the black haired has a pigment mark on her cheek while the blonde one does not)
B) he would not manifest in any such way, and not affect the material world in any way consistently attributable to him, then i am not the least interested in such existance, and for all practical means he does not exist, because such an existance is an empty statement, it implies nothing about the world
--- End quote ---
If you think like that, then you have to dismiss numbers, because they dont manifest. There may be three trees or three mountains, but can you see a three? No, only different symbols for it.
--- End quote ---
Numbers are an abstract concept, representing a quantity, the same way property is an abstract concept representing all one owns. I have no problem with them, as they truly are not real (except when therir imaginary part == 0 :D) just an abstraction. In the same way defining a god simply as a term for a possible sum of 'greatness' (whatever that means) is OK but that will not make it a real concrete being, and would not be very useful anyway.
Numbers help us model reality in increasingly complex ways, but the stated definition of god does not do anything useful
Dliessmgg:
--- Quote from: danman on 03 Sep 2009, 02:04 ---
--- Quote from: Dliessmgg on 02 Sep 2009, 23:43 ---
--- Quote from: danman on 02 Sep 2009, 16:39 ---But it boils down to the same. Essentially you define something with a necessary property of existance, and then you assert that it must exist by virtue of its definition, such as a perfect god or a real unicorn.
--- End quote ---
Can you tell me where this necessary property of existance is? It's not like this wants to prove something like a triangle having three angles.
--- End quote ---
Yes, you said it before. Essentially the argument goes on to (prove) that a perfect god must have the property of existence (much like a real unicorn must have a property of existence).
--- End quote ---
I said it before, it doesn't prove that god exists, but that his inexistance is unthinkable. it says more about my thoughts than about god.
--- Quote from: danman on 03 Sep 2009, 02:04 ---
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: danman on 02 Sep 2009, 16:39 ---The flaw is the same - your thoughts and definitions have no impact on reality - what existed would continue to do so even without you, and you cannot make something appear simply by defining it as existing.
--- End quote ---
We make it real by thinking about it, because the world is what we think it is.
--- End quote ---
I would say we observe and process reality by perceiving it , not make it in our minds
--- End quote ---
The flat earth was real because they believed it was real. They feared exploring if it was relly flat because they thought they'd fall down. It doesn't matter that earth isn't really flat. Columbus was able to go to America because he believed that the earth was spherical.
--- Quote from: danman on 03 Sep 2009, 02:04 ---
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: danman on 02 Sep 2009, 16:39 ---Also - by existing, i mean manifesting itself in some clear, and verifiable way. Even if your god existed in the sense you jut described , two things could happen A) he would verifiably manifest by some phenomena, then that would be a proof, and the argument is redundant, since better ones abound (like the guy who distinguishes his twins by the fact that the black haired has a pigment mark on her cheek while the blonde one does not)
B) he would not manifest in any such way, and not affect the material world in any way consistently attributable to him, then i am not the least interested in such existance, and for all practical means he does not exist, because such an existance is an empty statement, it implies nothing about the world
--- End quote ---
If you think like that, then you have to dismiss numbers, because they dont manifest. There may be three trees or three mountains, but can you see a three? No, only different symbols for it.
--- End quote ---
Numbers are an abstract concept, representing a quantity, the same way property is an abstract concept representing all one owns. I have no problem with them, as they truly are not real (except when therir imaginary part == 0 :D) just an abstraction. In the same way defining a god simply as a term for a possible sum of 'greatness' (whatever that means) is OK but that will not make it a real concrete being, and would not be very useful anyway.
Numbers help us model reality in increasingly complex ways, but the stated definition of god does not do anything useful
--- End quote ---
it helps me to pursue a most rational view of god.
danman:
--- Quote from: Dliessmgg on 03 Sep 2009, 03:20 ---The flat earth was real because they believed it was real. They feared exploring if it was relly flat because they thought they'd fall down. It doesn't matter that earth isn't really flat. Columbus was able to go to America because he believed that the earth was spherical.
--- End quote ---
Just yesterday, i nearly fell on the exit of our house. Somebody has put his shoes where i believed it was only the floor, and i kicked into one of them and only my reflexes saved me.
According to what you say, this could not have happened, since before the fall, i did not believe there was any object that could interfere with my motion in there.
--- Quote ---it helps me to pursue a most rational view of god.
--- End quote ---
To restate it, your definition of an abstraction of 'great' terms which you associated with a term 'god' lets you define that term ? ie. the belief is self-serving, and has no other use. In the same way one could associate terms with thinkable maxima of other qualities , such as smallness ... if we define them as the existing maxima, then their non-existance would also be unthinkable
Dliessmgg:
--- Quote from: danman on 03 Sep 2009, 03:34 ---
--- Quote from: Dliessmgg on 03 Sep 2009, 03:20 ---The flat earth was real because they believed it was real. They feared exploring if it was relly flat because they thought they'd fall down. It doesn't matter that earth isn't really flat. Columbus was able to go to America because he believed that the earth was spherical.
--- End quote ---
Just yesterday, i nearly fell on the exit of our house. Somebody has put his shoes where i believed it was only the floor, and i kicked into one of them and only my reflexes saved me.
According to what you say, this could not have happened, since before the fall, i did not believe there was any object that could interfere with my motion in there.
--- End quote ---
You can step out of your door and they too. But they weren't always able to sail to America because their ships weren't good enough, so they made up stories. Their belief in those stories made it true for them.
--- Quote from: danman on 03 Sep 2009, 03:34 ---
--- Quote ---it helps me to pursue a most rational view of god.
--- End quote ---
To restate it, your definition of an abstraction of 'great' terms which you associated with a term 'god' lets you define that term ? ie. the belief is self-serving, and has no other use.
--- End quote ---
Religion is a part of every culture, so I want to understand it and not trashcan it by saying "They believe because they don't know therefore they're stupid".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version