On 1/12/2013 9:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
> Please provide some reference showing almost all theists use that
of God [ a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe] . I
unlikely that most theists would incorporate every facet of that
That's true. Many theists, the more intelligent ones anyway, reject the
idea of God
but they become so in love with a word they play a silly and rather
If, as so many have, you redefine the word "God" to mean "a power greater
myself" then I am a theist who firmly believes in God because I believe that
bulldozers exist. But if by "God" you mean a being with super-human
God is just a comic book superhero (or supervillan) and I am a agnostic
something like that actually existing somewhere in the universe.
> It doesn't matter if 95% of theisms are ones you find fault with; it
takes one correct theism to make atheism wrong, which is why I think it
untenable and illogical position.
Obviously I can't refute every one of the tens of thousands of Gods that
invented over the eons,
It is not about refuting all of them. It is that maybe there are some you would do
believe in, if you knew more about them. Even one who has spent years studying all
known human religions lacks knowledge about religions unknown to history, or any of the
individually developed privately known religions, or religions of other species or
civilizations on other planets. How can anyone presume to know enough to know that they
are all false?
but your statement assumes that if there is no hard evidence for or against
then there is a 50% chance that it is correct and thus worthy of serious
consideration. And that is idiotic.
I never said there was a 50% probability, or that all theories are worthy of serious
consideration. I do find it absurd, however, to reject all theories when one has no
evidence for or against them. Why not remain neutral until you have a reason
otherwise? Also, if you don't think 50% is a valid starting point, what do you suggest
is a good /prior probability/ to use in Bayesian inference when one lacks any evidence
for or against a proposition?
> John said that he "just believes in one less god" than I do, but he
say what that one God was that I believed in but he doesn't.
I don't believe in a omnipotent omniscient being that created the universe
think you do.
No you don't. I've said before an omniscient being does not have the power to forget,
and hence cannot be considered omnipotent. However, if you limit those words to refer
to something else, like a universe (rather than to itself, where the contradiction is
created), then it may be possible to be both omniscient and omnipotent in reference to
that other thing.
Since you and I are both platonists, we agree that anything not ruled out by its
definition exists. So you should agree there are instances in the plentitude where
beings create vast simulations of entire universes. We humans have already played this
role in creating relatively simple GoL universes. In the context of the simulation, a
being can know everything about it and simultaneously exercise complete control over it,
even changing the laws or altering its natural progression of the simulation.
As one who often writes simulations, I note that I *don't* know everything about them and
the reason I create them is to find out something I don't know. Of course you may say
that I could find it out, after the simulation has run - but that does seem to be what the
religious mean by omniscient since they include knowing things before they happen.
If you believe everything with a consistent definition exists, then there exists a
universe just like ours that was created by a being who knows everything that happens in
it and has complete control to alter it in any way that being sees fit. There is
nothing inconsistent or impossible about this. So you have a choice: either abandon
platonism or abandon atheism. The two are incompatible.
If it's possible we live in a simulation, it's also possible we don't. So I don't see the
This is more easily demonstrable when you use other definitions of God, such as when you
identify the platonic plenitude with the Hindu's Brahman. You and Brent seem hell-bent
on using a definition where God is an omniscient and omnipotent person,
And beneficent and answers prayers. Other gods who may have created the universe for
amusement and who are not beneficent are possible. Gods who created this universe as a
simulation to see how it turns out and who therefore never meddle in it, deist gods are
But many things are possible. I don't go around believing them just because they are
possible. A-theism doesn't mean believing there are no gods, it just means failing to
believe there are gods (at least theist ones).
so I offer the above example of the simulation hypothesis as an example more fitting to
While on this subject, I have another question for you and Brent: Do you believe in an
afterlife or immortality?
I think the evidence is against it.
Is there any definition of "soul" you agree with?
That's a liberal theologians question: There's a word "soul" I'd like to use. Please
think of something it applies to so we can agree that it exists.
I'd be happy to agree with any definition that captures common usage and is definite. I
think common usage equates soul with the basic character and expressed values of a person
or other agent.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at