On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck <chris_peck...@hotmail.com>wrote: > >> there are many words like that which we use without any fuss. >> >> The word 'game' is a famous example where different games possess a >> myriad of properties which are shared by some and not others. In fact there >> doesn't seem to be a set of properties sufficient to capture the nature of >> all games. Nevertheless, we use the word without any fuss. >> > > Words with broad meanings are fine. Where they lead to trouble is when > one asserts the non-existence of all things that belong to very wide > classes. For example "I don't believe there exists any game that I would > enjoy". As you point out, this statement applies to an immense set of > possible objects because so many possible games exist. Without knowing or > experiencing every possible game, how can such a belief be justified? > > > It's justified by introspection as to what one believes. > One may believe that, but the belief has no justification. Just because someone dislikes 800 out of the 800 games they have tried is not proof that they dislike all games. This reminds me of the joke where the physicists try to prove all odd numbers are prime: Physicist: "1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 - that's strange, must be experimental error..., 11 is prime, 13 is prime. It is proven!" Note that it is NOT the same as the assertion, "There is no game that I > would enjoy." > I can see see some difference between "I don't believe there exists any game that I would enjoy" and "There is no game that I would enjoy.", but there are many atheists who will confidently say "God does not exist". But even if an atheist said "I don't believe in God", it still suffers from being a horribly ambiguous statement. > So does an "agameist" simply fail to believe there is a game he would > enjoy or does an "agameist" assert, as a fact, there is no game he would > enjoy. > > Either one potentially. I like Bruno's use of "not" and "believe" to clearly distinguish between these two characterizations. > > Likewise, when Dawkins says he believes in no Gods, how can he make > rightfully make such a statement without knowing all possible religions and > conceptions of God in those religions? > > > The same way he can say believes in no teapots orbiting Jupiter. > > That analogy does not work. There are logical reasons suggesting the low probability of a teapot orbiting Jupiter. What are the logical reasons that no God-like entity exists anywhere in reality? > > > Isn't it possible, (even suggested by some of our scientific theories), > that something that is infinite, uncreated, eternal, and responsible for > your existence exists? > > > Logically possible. Nomologically? > > It is probable. If you put any stock in any of the various scientific theories that suggest an infinite reality. UDA, mathematical realism, string theory, cosmic inflation, many worlds. I think you dislike these ideas in part because they shake the foundation of atheism: it becomes much harder to deny the existence of objects on the mere basis that we can't see, if one accepts that reality is as big as these theories suggest. Similarly, you once argued against fine-tuning on the basis that it would provide ammunition for intelligent designers. This isn't the ideal way to find correct theories. > Isn't it possible that the simulation hypothesis could be true and that > a hyper-intelligent mind could explore (create?) reality through > simulation? Such hyper intelligent beings could even "save" other simpler > beings by copying and pasting them into a reality under its control. > Isn't it possible that universalism is the correct theory of personal > identity, and there is in truth only one experiencer, the one soul behind > all the eyes of all creatures? > > > And it's possible we are the puppets of supernatural demons bent on > creating the worst of all possible worlds. > But there is no evidence, argument, or justification for this. > > > > Atheism, in its naivety, rejects all these possibilities without even > realizing it has done so. > > > "Rejects" as in "fails to believe" - as any rational person would. > Rationality does not justify their rejection of these theories. Your statement above is a perfect example of the atheist assumption that rationality is always on the side of their dogma. Tell me, what is irrational about universalism? It is an idea that Erwin Schrodinger, Kurt Godel, Fred Hoyle, Freeman Dyson, Arnold Zuboff, etc. all independently arrived upon, and is supported up by many thought experiments on the subject of personhood and personal identity. Sorry I forgot the existence of a single mind sounds too much like God, and therefore must be false and no rational person could ever come to such a conclusion! > > > Various existing religions across the world have described God in terms > essentially identical to the three examples above. > > > No religion with more than a handful of adherents posits an impersonal > God. > The second God I mentioned (the hyper-intelligences that exist as Jupiter brains/omega point civilizations, AI's with unlimited computing power in the UD, etc. are not impersonal. They are thinking, conscious entities. If reality is very big, then these entities are certain to exist. > Of course the apologists for religions have used such terms, because they > realize much the evidence is against a personal God and so they have sought > to invent something on which they can hang the word "God". > Atheists would prefer that we forgot about logical realistic Gods and focus on only the impossible, illogical, inconsistent ones, it makes their lives a lot easier. > > What motivation does atheism have to reject these notions of god? It > seems the only reason is the dogma: "there is no god", and so it was proven > "anything that even has the appearance of a god is obviously false at the > start." > > > The atheists I know (including Dawkins and Stenger) are careful to define > "God" as the god of Abraham as described in the Torah, the Bible, the > Quran, the god of theism. > Sounds like further confirmation of Bruno's theory. > They directly admit that the god of deism is possible - though there is no > reason to be;o > > > > Isn't it better to have an unbiased, agnostic, and open mind on > ontological questions which are no where close to being settled? > > > But if you believe things just because they are possible then you're so > open minded you're in danger of having your brains fall out. > > > Don't worry; it hasn't happened to anyone I know. > > > >> >> And in a way the fact 'God' means different things to different people >> isn't a problem. If I say someone is an atheist, you can say that this >> person has some conception of God, whatever it is, and doesn't believe that >> thing exists. You can say that much at the very least. >> > > In that case everyone is an atheist, as you could cook up any definition > of some God that person will not believe in. > > > Which is just the converse of dreaming up "possible" gods in order that > you can claim everyone MUST believe in one of them and so everyone is > religious. > It is (some) atheists saying no gods exist. It only takes one counter example to disprove that proposition. > > > The word atheist is either meaningless (if it applies to specific or > certain God/gods), or it is inconsistent/unsupported if you apply it to > more general definitions of god. It's a word that seems to carry less than > 1 bit of information. > > I think a far better term (one that perhaps many people really mean when > they say they are agnostic or atheist) is that they are a "free thinker" as > in: > "The philosophical <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy> viewpoint > that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of > logic<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic>, > reason <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason>, and > empiricism<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism>, > rather than authority <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority>, > tradition<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition>, > or other dogmas <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma>." > > Free thought is also more in line with the a genuine scientific > attitude, whereas many sects of atheism are prone to authority and dogmas. > > > I agree with the first clause. The second makes me wonder where are these > "sects of atheism" where are their dogmas promulgated, where do they meet, > how are they counted? > What I meant is that there are brands of atheism where the adherents care more about preserving their own belief of "no god" than listing to what logic, reason, and empiricism say. Jason > > Brent > I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if > He did not. > --- Jules Renard > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.