Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 90
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by frank
    Okay...I counter with god is not defined as a necessary being. Or...god is defined as blah, blah, blah.

    Which do we go with?

    And why?
    your counter doesn't seem to be a valid or coherent definition.
    I mean is god a cup, because a cup isn't a necessary being, so that fulfills the definition you gave.

    or your second
    god is defined as "blah blah". Your definition is literally gibberish.

    As neither are coherent, we should go with the coherent one.

    finally I want to challenge the validity of your agnosticism.
    Are you really saying that god defined as blah blah, is equally tenable to either exist or not exist?
    I think your being a little intellectually lazy, and needlessly hostile to new ideas.
    To serve man.

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    your counter doesn't seem to be a valid or coherent definition.
    I mean is god a cup, because a cup isn't a necessary being, so that fulfills the definition you gave.

    or your second
    god is defined as "blah blah". Your definition is literally gibberish.

    As neither are coherent, we should go with the coherent one.

    finally I want to challenge the validity of your agnosticism.
    Are you really saying that god defined as blah blah, is equally tenable to either exist or not exist?
    I think your being a little intellectually lazy, and needlessly hostile to new ideas.

    One...I am not being "needlessly hostile"...nor hostile at all. I want you to understand that I finally have found what I was looking for here...and I must acknowledge that I thought that would not happen. I am absolutely delighted with the conversation we are having...and I appreciate you having it with me more than I can easily express. Any hostility you suppose is simply me being anxious to get on with things...to get to the meat of the matter, so to speak.

    Two...there really is no new idea here...at least not for me. I've been dealing with this particular issue for almost fifty years...twenty of them on the Internet. I have heard just about every form of ontological argument. possible...and never have found one worth a sou.

    This one you are attempting does not fall into the category of "one of the better ones." It relies on a P1 that is better classified as a C...and should have been offered not as "God is defined as a necessary being" but rather as "If God were defined as a necessary being"...although frankly, it should not have been offered at all.

    We are not yet aiming at "God exists"...we are aiming at "At least one god exists"...or at least you should be.

    If you want to offer your P1 in the conditional subjunctive form...I'll accept it, although that can never derive a non-conditional C. That conditional form would have to include the notion of it being applicable to "one god exists...and probably look like: If at least one god exists, it could be defined as a necessary being...or some form like that.

    I'll let you know now that if later in our discussion you are going to arrive at: "Therefore, (that god) is defined as a necessary being"...you are going to have to offer a valid P1 and P2 to arrive there.


    Hey, MT truly...there is no hostility here. I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me about this stuff. One last thing, though, I asked about your religion. Is that something you do not want to share for some reason?

  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    One...I am not being "needlessly hostile"...nor hostile at all. I want you to understand that I finally have found what I was looking for here...and I must acknowledge that I thought that would not happen. I am absolutely delighted with the conversation we are having...and I appreciate you having it with me more than I can easily express. Any hostility you suppose is simply me being anxious to get on with things...to get to the meat of the matter, so to speak.

    Two...there really is no new idea here...at least not for me. I've been dealing with this particular issue for almost fifty years...twenty of them on the Internet. I have heard just about every form of ontological argument. possible...and never have found one worth a sou.

    This one you are attempting does not fall into the category of "one of the better ones." It relies on a P1 that is better classified as a C...and should have been offered not as "God is defined as a necessary being" but rather as "If God were defined as a necessary being"...although frankly, it should not have been offered at all.

    We are not yet aiming at "God exists"...we are aiming at "At least one god exists"...or at least you should be.

    If you want to offer your P1 in the conditional subjunctive form...I'll accept it, although that can never derive a non-conditional C. That conditional form would have to include the notion of it being applicable to "one god exists...and probably look like: If at least one god exists, it could be defined as a necessary being...or some form like that.

    I'll let you know now that if later in our discussion you are going to arrive at: "Therefore, (that god) is defined as a necessary being"...you are going to have to offer a valid P1 and P2 to arrive there.

    Hey, MT truly...there is no hostility here. I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me about this stuff. One last thing, though, I asked about your religion. Is that something you do not want to share for some reason?
    Well, if you came here for novelty, you may be disappointed.

    If this were a formal debate, or if this were a thread in which we had to rigorously support each premise, then perhaps the level of scrutiny you are applying would be good.
    However, lets not kid around. We both know that we have a an understood meaning of the concept of god that we have been using our entire lives.
    And yours has certainly not been "Blah Blah". That is why I say you are being needlessly hostile, not to me personally I get that, your very cordial and patient here I think. However to the ideas we have and hold and how that effects how we move forward.
    Forwarding an idea that is inconsistent with your own view, is not exactly helpful. I mean, if you really defined god as "blah blah", then you can not reasonably call yourself an agnostic, because.

    My only point here, is that we can't have a discussion about god without certain pre-suppositions. One of those can be what the idea of god is.. but whatever it is.
    It is going to effect our discussion.

    So from my point of view, that god is defined as a necessary being. What the ontological argument does is that it shows that depending on how we define god, our conversation will be logically limited.
    and while I understand your objection to the ontological argument (i'm not new), what can't be denied is that if God is defined in certain ways, we can not coherently deny its existence.

    And you are free to offer some other definition of god that I may understand or recognize, but I am pretty sure you recognize the god that is defined as a necessary being.
    And.. as long as it is POSSIBLE, then it must be dealt with when asserted.

    Ultimately, if you are to hold to agnostics, towards a given idea of god, then both propositions (p exsits and p doesn't exist) must be equally coherent and valid.
    On thing the ontological does, is show the logical impossibility of that.
    To serve man.

  4. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, if you came here for novelty, you may be disappointed.

    If this were a formal debate, or if this were a thread in which we had to rigorously support each premise, then perhaps the level of scrutiny you are applying would be good.
    However, lets not kid around. We both know that we have a an understood meaning of the concept of god that we have been using our entire lives.
    And yours has certainly not been "Blah Blah". That is why I say you are being needlessly hostile, not to me personally I get that, your very cordial and patient here I think. However to the ideas we have and hold and how that effects how we move forward.
    Forwarding an idea that is inconsistent with your own view, is not exactly helpful. I mean, if you really defined god as "blah blah", then you can not reasonably call yourself an agnostic, because.

    My only point here, is that we can't have a discussion about god without certain pre-suppositions. One of those can be what the idea of god is.. but whatever it is.
    It is going to effect our discussion.

    So from my point of view, that god is defined as a necessary being. What the ontological argument does is that it shows that depending on how we define god, our conversation will be logically limited.
    and while I understand your objection to the ontological argument (i'm not new), what can't be denied is that if God is defined in certain ways, we can not coherently deny its existence.

    And you are free to offer some other definition of god that I may understand or recognize, but I am pretty sure you recognize the god that is defined as a necessary being.
    And.. as long as it is POSSIBLE, then it must be dealt with when asserted.

    Ultimately, if you are to hold to agnostics, towards a given idea of god, then both propositions (p exsits and p doesn't exist) must be equally coherent and valid.
    On thing the ontological does, is show the logical impossibility of that.
    I'm not going to go through the rest of this...although I read the entire post...because the most important part is the part that I enlarged.

    I, PERSONALLY, am not going to have a discussion about God or god...without FIRST having a discussion about whether we can determine if at least one god exists or not.

    I recognize you are not new to this, MT...which is why I am delighted we are engaging here. As someone not new...you have to realize that if we cannot determine if at least one god exists or not...

    ...all the rest of this stuff is just nonsense. If we can't...all the rest of this stuff would be based on a GUESS that at least one does exist...and that the one that exists is the ONE of which you speak.

    Now...without any further beating around the bush...YOU said that you CAN determine that at least one god exists.

    Do it. Or at least attempt to do it.

    I'm waiting with bated breath...whatever the hell that means.

  5. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by frank
    I, PERSONALLY, am not going to have a discussion about God or god...without FIRST having a discussion about whether we can determine if at least one god exists or not.
    What do you mean god?

    Because so far your provided definition, which is as far as I know how you understand the concept, doesn't make any sense.. so this statement of yours doesn't make any sense.

    to me it currently reads.
    "I'm not going to have a discussion about blah blah, or blah blah.. without first having a discussion about whether we can determine if at least one blah blah exists or not."

    And by golly, I don't blame you.

    For my part, all the stuff you called nonsense and a guess, has been to specific point, which I will set aside for now in order to first land upon what it is we are both talking about when we are discussing the idea of a god.
    I do have a habit of assuming people are on the same page as me, and you did ask me to go very slow. ... and I didn't. Sorry about that.

    So lets take a step back and explain what you mean as god. .and what is open for discussion.
    To serve man.

  6. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What do you mean god?

    So lets take a step back and explain what you mean as god. .and what is open for discussion.
    Okay...that's fair.

    First a few comments about the definition you used:

    People who posit a definition of god as “a necessary being”…are essentially defining a god as something that ABSOLUTELY HAS TO EXIST.

    As I've mentioned several times, it is a gratuitous assertion aided and abetted by other gratuitous assertions that follow as supposed establishment arguments. Accepting it puts your discussion partner at a singular disadvantage, because doing so would be starting off a discussion purporting to determine if it is possible to determine whether at least one god exists or not by conceding that it not only is possible to do so...but that the existence of at least one god cannot be questioned.

    I cannot accept that. Anybody who would is a fool. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, MT, but I am not a fool.

    So, as you requested, I will offer a definition we can use. This is not “my” definition, mind you...just “a” definition. I will be using your methodology...the method you used to come up with your definition. Either accept it…or acknowledge that doing this kind of thing is inappropriate.

    Here goes:

    Let us define a god as something inherently impossible…something that cannot possibly exist.

    A god supposedly is something outside of nature. “Outside of nature”, of necessity, means outside of existence. Since anything outside of existence is something that does not exist…

    …let us define a god as something that cannot possibly exist.

    So...that's what I suggest we use as the definition of a god: a god = something that cannot possibly exist.

    Now...do you have a problem with that definition?

    If not, we can proceed to your proof that something that cannot exist...exists. (A = not A.)

    (If you do have a problem with it…you probably have a much clearer understanding of my reluctance to accept your definition.)

  7. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    I appreciate your point, but I feel you are not being consistent. I mean within your own world view.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    I cannot accept that. Anybody who would is a fool. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, MT, but I am not a fool.
    I agree you don't appear to be a fool, and I don't take you for one. I do appreciate this exchange, but I find this at odds with what you are about to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    Let us define a god as something inherently impossible…something that cannot possibly exist.
    My friend, how in the world can you maintain that you are an agnostic to such an idea of god?

    I will get to my second point on this, but this can not be under stated, and I would really like you to address it.
    To serve man.

  8. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I appreciate your point, but I feel you are not being consistent. I mean within your own world view.


    I agree you don't appear to be a fool, and I don't take you for one. I do appreciate this exchange, but I find this at odds with what you are about to say.


    My friend, how in the world can you maintain that you are an agnostic to such an idea of god?
    VERY EASILY...IF YOU READ WHAT I WROTE.

    This IS NOT MY DEFINITION...IT IS A DEFINITION.

    I thought I made that pretty clear...since I used English words.

    I will get to my second point on this, but this can not be under stated, and I would really like you to address it.
    Done.

    Please get on to your second point.


    THIS IS ADDED AFTER I INITIALLY POSTED:

    One...stop questioning my agnosticism.

    Two...either tell me what your religion is...or give me the respect to tell me you do not want to. No need for an explanation.

  9. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by frank
    VERY EASILY...IF YOU READ WHAT I WROTE.

    This IS NOT MY DEFINITION...IT IS A DEFINITION.

    I thought I made that pretty clear...since I used English words.
    Fair enough. but your the one that chose that definition, as the one we should be using.
    I'm going to try and understand your position based on what you give me.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    THIS IS ADDED AFTER I INITIALLY POSTED:

    One...stop questioning my agnosticism.

    Two...either tell me what your religion is...or give me the respect to tell me you do not want to. No need for an explanation.
    I'm a Christian, non-denominational.. raised mostly baptist, but have some experience with catholic church on my fathers side, brother is a Calvinist and we have lots of discussion and debate along those lines.

    As to questioning your agnosticism, I would like to keep our answers to each other at least consistent within our own views.
    I mean, I get examples to make a point, and I see that is what your doing.

    ---So my second point.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    Let us define a god as something inherently impossible…something that cannot possibly exist.

    A god supposedly is something outside of nature. “Outside of nature”, of necessity, means outside of existence. Since anything outside of existence is something that does not exist…

    …let us define a god as something that cannot possibly exist.

    So...that's what I suggest we use as the definition of a god: a god = something that cannot possibly exist.

    Now...do you have a problem with that definition?
    Well, as a definition it is fine. (Concepts are what they are). We shouldn't accept it because it is nonsensical.
    And I will agree with you that such a god can not exist in reality.
    Which of course supports my position that we can know if god exists or not. I don't see how it supports your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    (If you do have a problem with it…you probably have a much clearer understanding of my reluctance to accept your definition.)
    I understand your reluctance, but it isn't grounded in reason. It is your presupposition to reject a valid definition without any reason other than you don't like the conversation and reasoning it will lead to.
    Where as, I reject the definition you offered, not because I don't want to talk about it. But because it is demonstrably illogical.


    Finally, as I assume that we both agree that definition is deficient, and non-nonsensical
    and as you have said it isn't your definition..

    Then what is it that YOU mean, with YOUR definition when you say

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    "I, PERSONALLY, am not going to have a discussion about God or god...without FIRST having a discussion about whether we can determine if at least one god exists or not."
    Just to cover all the basis here.
    did you claim
    "I do not know if gods exist or not;
    I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
    I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
    I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction..."

    Because you don't know what the word god even means?
    To serve man.

  10. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Fair enough. but your the one that chose that definition, as the one we should be using.
    I'm going to try and understand your position based on what you give me.
    What I was trying to do...was to tell you that your notion of how we should "define" a god...was absurd. Every bit as absurd as the one I chose.

    Obviously I failed at that.


    I'm a Christian, non-denominational.. raised mostly baptist, but have some experience with catholic church on my fathers side, brother is a Calvinist and we have lots of discussion and debate along those lines.

    As to questioning your agnosticism, I would like to keep our answers to each other at least consistent within our own views.
    I mean, I get examples to make a point, and I see that is what your doing.
    Okay.

    ---So my second point.


    Well, as a definition it is fine. (Concepts are what they are). We shouldn't accept it because it is nonsensical.
    And I will agree with you that such a god can not exist in reality.
    Which of course supports my position that we can know if god exists or not. I don't see how it supports your position.
    EVERYTHING supports MY position...because MY position is that I do not know if gods exist or not.

    I understand your reluctance, but it isn't grounded in reason. It is your presupposition to reject a valid definition without any reason other than you don't like the conversation and reasoning it will lead to.
    Where as, I reject the definition you offered, not because I don't want to talk about it. But because it is demonstrably illogical.


    Finally, as I assume that we both agree that definition is deficient, and non-nonsensical
    and as you have said it isn't your definition..

    Then what is it that YOU mean, with YOUR definition when you say



    Just to cover all the basis here.
    did you claim
    "I do not know if gods exist or not;
    I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
    I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
    I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction..."

    Because you don't know what the word god even means?
    No.

    I understand what most people mean by the term "God"...and I understand what YOU mean when you use the term "God"...and I certainly understand what I mean when I use the term "gods."

    What I mean with my agnosticism description is THAT I DO NOT KNOW IF GODS EXIST OR NOT.

    Let me rephrase that: I do not know if at least one god exists...or if no gods exist.

    I think you don't either. In fact, I think nobody knows.

    But you are claiming you do know...that YOU can determine if at least one god exists. You appear to be claiming that YOU can determine the positive of that proposition...namely, that one god does indeed exist.

    So I am still waiting for you logically to arrive at:

    C: Therefore, at least one god exists.

    Give me the P1. We will get to the P2 presently.

    (Keep in mind that the P1 you gave earlier, which amounts to "at least one god has to exist", is no longer in play.)

  11. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    so to be clear.

    You are rejecting the definition of god as a "necessary being"
    and please correct me if I have you wrong here...
    Because you won't let me, because it is unfair.

    Is that right?


    My problem is, that despite your objections there is nothing inherently wrong with the definition. In other words, it could very well be that such a god exists, and so we should explore the concept.
    You have offered only that it asks the opponent to give up to much before the discussion is even engaged.. but the burden of the opponent is to show that such a definition is NOT POSSIBLE.

    If you arbitrarily don't wish to discuss a valid definition of god, then we can move on to some other topic. I would like to hear from you
    1) Why the definition I offered is not a possible definition
    2) Another valid definition from which we can launch the discussion.

    There simply is no grounds to discuss if something exists or not, if you are not willing to entertain a valid definition or offer your own. I can address logical challenges, but not arbitrary red lines.
    To serve man.

  12. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    so to be clear.

    You are rejecting the definition of god as a "necessary being"
    and please correct me if I have you wrong here...
    Because you won't let me, because it is unfair.

    Is that right?
    Yeah, I think it is unfair.

    You also think it is unfair...and suppose it to be contrary to my agnosticism. You told me it was strange that I would accept a definition of "gods are impossible" when I offered it (one of the reason I did offer it)...so why would you not think it strange for me to accept a definition of "at least one god is a MUST?"


    My problem is, that despite your objections there is nothing inherently wrong with the definition. In other words, it could very well be that such a god exists, and so we should explore the concept.
    I am not interested in exploring it. I am interested in the initial question that must be decided before getting into anything else, namely..."Can we determine if at least one god exists (in other words, if any gods exist)...or if no gods exist?"

    I've mentioned this several times. You keep wanting to skip this stage...and I can guess why. (Because the answer is almost certainly...NO WE CANNOT...which is going to make all the rest of the discussion about our blind guesses.)

    You have offered only that it asks the opponent to give up to much before the discussion is even engaged.. but the burden of the opponent is to show that such a definition is NOT POSSIBLE.
    No it isn't. C'mon. You know better than that. The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on the individual making the assertion.

    If you arbitrarily don't wish to discuss a valid definition of god, then we can move on to some other topic. I would like to hear from you
    1) Why the definition I offered is not a possible definition
    2) Another valid definition from which we can launch the discussion.
    Okay...let's agree on that.

    (Keep in mind that most of the "gods" that have been worshiped on planet Earth like, Odin, Jupiter, Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Vulcan, Pluto, Hades, Minerva, Ra, Isis, Osiris, Baal, Huitzilopochtli. Quetzalcoatl, Tezcatlipoca...and the estimated 200,000,000 million other gods...are considered mythological deities.)

    In a sense, I have offered a valid definition by asserting my agnosticism. But let me make that a more formal construct.

    For the purposes of our discussion...and more particularly for the purposes of you handling that initial question still unanswered, let us define a god as:

    "The entity responsible for the creation of what we humans call "the physical universe"...IF THERE IS SUCH AN ENTITY."

    I am willing to use that. You?

    There simply is no grounds to discuss if something exists or not, if you are not willing to entertain a valid definition or offer your own. I can address logical challenges, but not arbitrary red lines.
    Done!

  13. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Basically you made some of this post a moot point because you conceded my objections, so I will move on to my second point about the definition of God and which we are going to use.
    I am posting the response but skip it..

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    Yeah, I think it is unfair.

    You also think it is unfair...and suppose it to be contrary to my agnosticism. You told me it was strange that I would accept a definition of "gods are impossible" when I offered it (one of the reason I did offer it)...so why would you not think it strange for me to accept a definition of "at least one god is a MUST?"
    But we should not reject any definition simply because we think it is unfair. We should reject them on logical grounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    I am not interested in exploring it. I am interested in the initial question that must be decided before getting into anything else, namely..."Can we determine if at least one god exists (in other words, if any gods exist)...or if no gods exist?"

    I've mentioned this several times. You keep wanting to skip this stage...and I can guess why. (Because the answer is almost certainly...NO WE CANNOT...which is going to make all the rest of the discussion about our blind guesses.)
    I am not trying to skip that stage, I'm trying to ensure that we are not talking past each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    No it isn't. C'mon. You know better than that. The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on the individual making the assertion.
    You have the burden of explaining the meaning of your question to me.
    Only then can I answer it in the context of your question.

    I can not say.
    "can we determine if at least one "ahhaoerh" exist?

    No.. don't ask me what it means and just answer the question!


    ---------------Skip to here-----
    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    Okay...let's agree on that.

    (Keep in mind that most of the "gods" that have been worshiped on planet Earth like, Odin, Jupiter, Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Vulcan, Pluto, Hades, Minerva, Ra, Isis, Osiris, Baal, Huitzilopochtli. Quetzalcoatl, Tezcatlipoca...and the estimated 200,000,000 million other gods...are considered mythological deities.)

    In a sense, I have offered a valid definition by asserting my agnosticism. But let me make that a more formal construct.

    For the purposes of our discussion...and more particularly for the purposes of you handling that initial question still unanswered, let us define a god as:

    "The entity responsible for the creation of what we humans call "the physical universe"...IF THERE IS SUCH AN ENTITY."

    I am willing to use that. You?
    Great! Thank you.

    So, a few things.
    1) the "if there is such an entity" is not part of the definition you offer. That is a reference to our states of mind, not the object of the definition.
    2) Would you agree that there are other possible definitions of god?
    3) Wouldn't you agree that there are some logically necessary implications to the definition you offered?
    To serve man.

  14. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ---------------Skip to here-----

    Great! Thank you.
    You are welcome.



    So, a few things.
    1) the "if there is such an entity" is not part of the definition you offer. That is a reference to our states of mind, not the object of the definition.
    No it isn't just a reference to our states of mind. Quite the opposite, in fact. Without it, we devolve into "just our states of mind."

    IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DEFINITION...because without it, we have just "references to states of mind."

    MT, I am willing to accept a definition which reduces to "a CREATOR god"...but only with the proviso that we acknowledge that such a "creation" may or may not be the REALITY...which requires that we acknowledge that the modifier "if there is such an entity" be used in our definition of a god.

    2) Would you agree that there are other possible definitions of god?
    I acknowledge that without reservation.

    Other "possible definitions" would, of course, include your original entry (which is a ludicrous one)...and my earlier entry (which is every bit as ludicrous.)

    3) Wouldn't you agree that there are some logically necessary implications to the definition you offered?
    I would agree there could (might) be...and would be willing to consider any you offer. Why don't you do that.

  15. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    No it isn't just a reference to our states of mind. Quite the opposite, in fact. Without it, we devolve into "just our states of mind."
    Ideas exist primarily in the mind, so that isn't a valid objection. Any idea we seek to discuss would first have to be internally consistent. We don't define ideas the way you are seeking to, which means you are unnecessarily adding something for an unjustified reason.

    Adding "if there is such an entity", simply is not about the idea we are trying to describe and discuss. It is about our knowledge about the idea.
    Such that, should the thing exist in reality, the definition would be nullified or useless. There is no sense in which "if there is such an entity" refers to that entity in a definition way, it certainly doesn't add clarity as to what that entity is.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    MT, I am willing to accept a definition which reduces to "a CREATOR god"...but only with the proviso that we acknowledge that such a "creation" may or may not be the REALITY...which requires that we acknowledge that the modifier "if there is such an entity" be used in our definition of a god.
    That modifier is not about the definition it is about our state of mind.
    It certainly isn't a modifier we use about the term "reality". your objection is in regarding our knowledge of if the thing exist, and you want to ensure that the possibility that a given idea may not exist in reality.
    That is a bias that you are projecting arbitrarily and without justification. In so doing you define away the possibility of ANY necessary ideas.

    It's not a logically justified starting point.

    --summary--
    1) Your modifier is not about the idea itself and is about our state of mind, so it is unnecessary, and arbitrary.
    2) We are discussing an idea, ideas are first elements of the mind, so your response to #1 is invalid.
    To serve man.

  16. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Ideas exist primarily in the mind, so that isn't a valid objection. Any idea we seek to discuss would first have to be internally consistent. We don't define ideas the way you are seeking to, which means you are unnecessarily adding something for an unjustified reason.

    Adding "if there is such an entity", simply is not about the idea we are trying to describe and discuss. It is about our knowledge about the idea.
    Such that, should the thing exist in reality, the definition would be nullified or useless. There is no sense in which "if there is such an entity" refers to that entity in a definition way, it certainly doesn't add clarity as to what that entity is.


    That modifier is not about the definition it is about our state of mind.
    It certainly isn't a modifier we use about the term "reality". your objection is in regarding our knowledge of if the thing exist, and you want to ensure that the possibility that a given idea may not exist in reality.
    That is a bias that you are projecting arbitrarily and without justification. In so doing you define away the possibility of ANY necessary ideas.

    It's not a logically justified starting point.

    --summary--
    1) Your modifier is not about the idea itself and is about our state of mind, so it is unnecessary, and arbitrary.
    2) We are discussing an idea, ideas are first elements of the mind, so your response to #1 is invalid.
    MT…I disagree with your characterization of my proposal completely. The definition I offered is sound and appropriate. What you want me to do is to concede the argument…and then proceed to the argument. That is not going to happen.

    But, I want to be as reasonable as possible, so here is how I propose we handle this.

    Proposed: I do not know if this thing we humans call “the universe” is a “creation” or not. As far as I can tell, NEITHER do you…nor does Stephen Hawking…nor did Albert Einstein…or Isaac Newton.

    So, before we can use a definition like, “We can define a god as “an entity that created what we humans call “the universe” (without the modifier)…we would have to establish that “the thing we humans call ‘the universe’” IS a creation.

    Seems like we are going back a step…but since you insist…let’s tackle that.

    MY POSITION is that I do not know if it is…or is not.

    Your position apparently is that it IS a creation.

    So…we have a C of: Therefore it is a creation.

    Please furnish the major premise (P1) you will use to get us there…and we can discuss IT. As soon as we reach agreement on your P1...we can move on to your P2.

  17. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    MT…I disagree with your characterization of my proposal completely. The definition I offered is sound and appropriate. What you want me to do is to concede the argument…and then proceed to the argument. That is not going to happen.
    First, I understand you disagree, but you will have to offer some rebuttal to my objection that is something I can evaluate.
    Second, if it is the case that you think you are conceding the debate before we even start, I would say that is probably due more to the natural logical consiquences of certain ideas rather than some fallacy.
    We are not there yet, so i think it is unreasonable to say one way or another.

    Basically, you seem to have an idea of where you think the debate will go if you accept a certain premise. So you are arbitrarily rejecting that premise because you don't like the conclusion.
    That is just illogical, and born of bias.

    As it stands, we should consider any logically consistent and possible idea no matter what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    But, I want to be as reasonable as possible, so here is how I propose we handle this.

    Proposed: I do not know if this thing we humans call “the universe” is a “creation” or not. As far as I can tell, NEITHER do you…nor does Stephen Hawking…nor did Albert Einstein…or Isaac Newton.

    So, before we can use a definition like, “We can define a god as “an entity that created what we humans call “the universe” (without the modifier)…we would have to establish that “the thing we humans call ‘the universe’” IS a creation.

    Seems like we are going back a step…but since you insist…let’s tackle that.

    MY POSITION is that I do not know if it is…or is not.

    Your position apparently is that it IS a creation.

    So…we have a C of: Therefore it is a creation.

    Please furnish the major premise (P1) you will use to get us there…and we can discuss IT. As soon as we reach agreement on your P1...we can move on to your P2.
    I apprecaite your earnest attempt to find a path forward.
    I don't think your reasoning so far is sound(for where we should start) and the starting point your proposing is more an avoidance of an outcome you don't like, and think is unfair.

    I simply do not see the problem with evaluating if the logically possible and valid understanding of god i proposed is not an idea that should be explored.
    or, why it should be disqualified from being exhibte "A" in my case.

    It's as though you have said. show evidence and reason for X.
    and i start
    and you say.. no not that kind, that is unfair and will only support your case.

    I wish Understood your objection to be more than that.. but i'm not seeing it. help me out here.
    To serve man.

  18. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, I understand you disagree, but you will have to offer some rebuttal to my objection that is something I can evaluate.
    Second, if it is the case that you think you are conceding the debate before we even start, I would say that is probably due more to the natural logical consiquences of certain ideas rather than some fallacy.
    We are not there yet, so i think it is unreasonable to say one way or another.

    Basically, you seem to have an idea of where you think the debate will go if you accept a certain premise. So you are arbitrarily rejecting that premise because you don't like the conclusion.
    That is just illogical, and born of bias.

    As it stands, we should consider any logically consistent and possible idea no matter what it is.


    I apprecaite your earnest attempt to find a path forward.
    I don't think your reasoning so far is sound(for where we should start) and the starting point your proposing is more an avoidance of an outcome you don't like, and think is unfair.

    I simply do not see the problem with evaluating if the logically possible and valid understanding of god i proposed is not an idea that should be explored.
    or, why it should be disqualified from being exhibte "A" in my case.

    It's as though you have said. show evidence and reason for X.
    and i start
    and you say.. no not that kind, that is unfair and will only support your case.

    I wish Understood your objection to be more than that.. but i'm not seeing it. help me out here.
    Sure.

    You are being unreasonable. I hope that helps.

    - - - - - -

    If you want to take on the task of answering, "Can we determine if at least one god exists (in other words, if any gods exist)...or if no gods exist?"...that would be great with me. I'd love to hear your take.

    If you think it necessary to define the word "god" in "at least one god" further than what each of us would normally suppose it to mean in casual conversation...that would be great with me. But if you are going to use a definition that requires that a god exist...and then use that to get to, "Yes, we can"...that is not okay with me.

    I have offered a definition that would neatly fit into almost any dictionary available..."An entity that is the creator of what we humans term "the universe." I have indicated, justifiably, that I am not willing to concede that the thing we humans term "the universe" IS a creation. So, that earlier task HAS TO include determining that it is a creation...or adding the modifier, "IF it is a creation."

    If you want to do that...fine with me. I'd love to hear your take on that.

    If you want to offer an alternative that does not require me conceding the issue to you...do so. I would love to hear your take on that. Obviously my conceding the issue to you makes no more sense than you conceding it to me...which is why you declined my version of your methodology for "defining" the god.

    If you want not to do any of these things...that also is fine with me.

    Perhaps we could discuss interesting movies we've seen lately instead.

    So...what are we going to do.

  19. #39
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,557
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    If you think it necessary to define the word "god" in "at least one god" further than what each of us would normally suppose it to mean in casual conversation...that would be great with me. But if you are going to use a definition that requires that a god exist...and then use that to get to, "Yes, we can"...that is not okay with me.
    None of that is a logical objection that would make the definition I offered invalid. This is you arbitrarily setting a limit without a justifiable cause.
    If the definition I offered is a valid and possible definition, then it is a valid example of evidence for me to use to make a case.
    Your just saying you don't like that.. Which is fine for you, but it isn't reasoning or logic base, it is bias based.

    I also don't think you have used the definition people use in casual conversation. I think that would fall under the "supreme being" line.
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The “classical” conception of God includes God's necessary existence (see Plantinga 1974a, 1974b, 1980; Adams 1983; Morris & Menzel 1986; Morris 1987a, 1987b; Wierenga 1989; and MacDonald 1991)
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

    This link is support that I have used a classical understanding of God (Ie a specific god and a specific definition). By not being willing to discuss this one, all you can really accomplish is at best to cast doubt on all the other possible logically coherent definitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    I have offered a definition that would neatly fit into almost any dictionary available..."An entity that is the creator of what we humans term "the universe." I have indicated, justifiably, that I am not willing to concede that the thing we humans term "the universe" IS a creation. So, that earlier task HAS TO include determining that it is a creation...or adding the modifier, "IF it is a creation."
    I don't reject the specific definition you offered as being invalid, and you are free to use it in any case you want as long as we are clear.
    The problem is, it isn't the only possible definition, and as long as you are choosing that one over other possible ones based on your bias, then it isn't a logical discussion you are looking for, but a confirmation of your own pre-existing bias.

    For my part, I get to pick ANY valid definition to build a case from. You haven't shown my definition to be invalid, only personally distasteful and unfair to your pre existing ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    If you want to offer an alternative that does not require me conceding the issue to you...do so. I would love to hear your take on that. Obviously my conceding the issue to you makes no more sense than you conceding it to me...which is why you declined my version of your methodology for "defining" the god.
    That is not true frank.
    I offered a reason and you never rebutted it. That is that the definition you offered was incoherent and logically contradictory.
    You will note that I also said that such a god as you defined could not exist in reality, so that we could know if it exists or not.
    I also objected that such a definition allowed for reasonable agnosticism towards it.

    Quote Originally Posted by frank
    Sure.

    You are being unreasonable. I hope that helps.
    Well, I hope you can see that I have appealed to several logical lines of reasoning here. If you see that as unreasonable, that is of course your right.

    Formally stated my reasoning goes like this.

    To answer the question "can we know if at least one god exists".
    Taking any valid definition of god is a valid starting point.
    In answering the question with the burden of defining and supporting my points, I get to pick the idea of god that I think is the strongest or easiest to support.
    The definition of god I offered to be considered is logically valid, and logically possible.
    So to reject the definition is not a logical and thus valid objection, but a personal preference and an objection born of bias.

    If you see any


    ----
    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    If you want not to do any of these things...that also is fine with me.

    Perhaps we could discuss interesting movies we've seen lately instead.

    So...what are we going to do.
    Well, this is the mind Trap omnibus ask me anything thread.
    So, I do love movies.
    To serve man.

  20. #40
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    None of that is a logical objection that would make the definition I offered invalid. This is you arbitrarily setting a limit without a justifiable cause.
    Nonsense.

    YOUR definition REQUIRES that a god exists...and sets that "no gods exist" as an impossibility...AND IT DOES THAT ABSOLUTELY GRATUITOUSLY.

    So, essentially you are saying to me that YOU CAN determine that at least one god exists...but only if I first agree that at least one god HAS TO EXIST.

    That is an absurdity...and an insult to me to suppose such a proposition can be offered and I expected to accept it.

    I not only reject it...which any reasonable person discussing this topic would do...I now ask for an apology.

    After the apology...we can pursue the discussion.

    Or, you can refuse...and I will accept that as an indication we move on to a discussion about movies. I can be big enough to forget an insult...and not let anything linger.

    If that is the way you want to go, I suggest starting with the movie, "Being There."

    Lots to discuss about that movie...and its actors.

 

 
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •