(March 6, 2009 at 7:54 am)Demonaura Wrote: I wanted to bring up a quick topic before bed, it was an argument presented by Jen Peeples on the Atheist Experience which I'm sure many of you are familiar with.
The model she was presenting comprised of three jars, one jar had a set of dice in it, another had nothing at all and the third had 'trancendant dice'. Of course it is only a model, you won't likely find Trancendant dice at Wal-mart but, if you do phone the cops.
The trick was, when she told you what jar had what it was easy but, if she switched them up on you, you could not tell which jar had nothing and which jar had 'trancendant dice' in it. You had no tools or tests that could possibly determine the difference.
Obviously I don't need to beat around the bush, the 'trancendant dice' represented god. And to assume that those dice, or god exist you have to change the definition of existance to include things that you cannot know if they exist, thus destroying the meaning of the word.
The jars make it evident that in order to say god exists, one must be willing to knowingly change the meaning of the word existence, to include it's opposite because we have no way on this earth to tell the difference between a trancendant or invisible god, from absolutely nothing.
So, does anyone have any comments on the subject? Things you would add to the model or flaws you found in it. It seems sound to me but, I'd be interested to find flaws to see if they can be corrected or if the model fails in it's objective.
I believe that you mean transcendent dice and not trancendant dice.
The word "existence" reffers to real things as well as to unreal ones and that's what really matters when it comes to the notion of God because we perceive for everything the thought of existence versus inexistence including the notion of God ,whereas the god believer does not accept apriory the inexistence of God.
Now, the notion of existence is strongly related to the time and the event which preceed a particular existence of any event.
Here lays one of the essential differences in the conception of atheism versus religion because for religion the basic question of who created god is a blasphemy which is strictly forbidden to be asked,nor to be discussed.
The a bit more enlightened god believer who will have the courage to think of such a question will reply with a question asking "so who created nature?" hoping that you will be cornered to answer that nature exists forever and he will then say "OK God exists also forever ".
The Vatican has accepted with joy the theory of the Big Bang wich seemed to confirm the creation of the World at one time by God.
Science has still no answer to the question what premerged the Big
Bang as well as the basic question why the singular point exploded then and there.
These are limits of atheism to which we have no answer than that nature exposes her secrets to us humans only in the wake of our evolution as self consciuos beings.
I have said in many topics that in my opinion an efficient argument aginst the limits of atheism is the evidence that Goe is a creation of mankind for most provable purposes .
This is the answer to the transcedent dice :it has no appeared in the jar from nowhere and by nobody but someone and in sometime has put it in the jar a certain purpose.
