Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 16, 2016 at 7:27 pm
(April 16, 2016 at 1:04 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: (April 15, 2016 at 6:14 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Something is objective if it exists and could be known independently of who knows about it or even if no one learns anything about it at all.
The problem with this is that there's no way to demonstrate that what is known is independent of the nature of the knowers. We're all human and so we may share certain cognitive realities that are universal within the species, but yet are not truly universal. We can't be sure that mathematics is independent of the nature of the knower, so we can't simply conclude that it is objective. This is a systematic flaw with your definition of objective when applied to concepts.
Any other definition undermines the notion of true objectivity. At best all that remains is intersubjectivity. In my opinion that approach severs the relationship between first principles and external reality.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 16, 2016 at 8:45 pm
(April 16, 2016 at 7:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (April 16, 2016 at 1:04 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: The problem with this is that there's no way to demonstrate that what is known is independent of the nature of the knowers. We're all human and so we may share certain cognitive realities that are universal within the species, but yet are not truly universal. We can't be sure that mathematics is independent of the nature of the knower, so we can't simply conclude that it is objective. This is a systematic flaw with your definition of objective when applied to concepts.
Any other definition undermines the notion of true objectivity. At best all that remains is intersubjectivity. In my opinion that approach severs the relationship between first principles and external reality.
Then again, if intersubjectivity best describes the best we can do, then your notion of true objectivity would actually be false.
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 16, 2016 at 9:24 pm
(April 16, 2016 at 8:45 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: (April 16, 2016 at 7:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Any other definition undermines the notion of true objectivity. At best all that remains is intersubjectivity. In my opinion that approach severs the relationship between first principles and external reality. Then again, if intersubjectivity best describes the best we can do, then your notion of true objectivity would actually be false. That's not exactly what I had hoped to convey. An intersubjective stance cannot establish itself as the undeniably correct position, either, and infact leaves itself open to the same inconsistency found in all forms of relativism: "The only absolute truth is there are no absolute truths." While the belief in objectivity is just that, a belief, it is at the very least a self-consistent one.
Posts: 446
Threads: 1
Joined: January 20, 2013
Reputation:
8
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 17, 2016 at 2:12 am
(April 14, 2016 at 2:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: (April 14, 2016 at 9:14 am)RozKek Wrote: Do you phrase like that on purpose to fry people's brains?
Sorry about that. It was a bit awkward. The most basic definition of God comes from Anselm: God is that which the greater than which cannot be conceived. That definition effectively disarms inane comparisons between the Christian God and mythological creatures like fairies, etc.
I can certainly conceive of a much better god than the Christian God. The Christian God is a complete dick. In fact, all gods that anyone has ever thought up are complete dicks. I can think up something far superior.
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide mankind that cannot be achieved as well or better through secular means.
Bitch at my blog! Follow me on Twitter! Subscribe to my YouTube channel!
Posts: 13901
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 17, 2016 at 4:46 am
(April 17, 2016 at 2:12 am)Cephus Wrote: (April 14, 2016 at 2:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Sorry about that. It was a bit awkward. The most basic definition of God comes from Anselm: God is that which the greater than which cannot be conceived. That definition effectively disarms inane comparisons between the Christian God and mythological creatures like fairies, etc.
I can certainly conceive of a much better god than the Christian God. The Christian God is a complete dick. In fact, all gods that anyone has ever thought up are complete dicks. I can think up something far superior.
The FSM (Dolmio be upon him), provides hooker factories and beer volcanoes.
Check mate Christians.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 8267
Threads: 47
Joined: September 12, 2015
Reputation:
42
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 17, 2016 at 4:50 am
(April 14, 2016 at 8:05 am)ChadWooters Wrote: A fairie is not that which the greater than which cannot be conceived.
Neither is yhwh, I can easily conceive more maximally great beings than kne with great power but the morals of a spoiled child. Hell, I can point to historical people who have better claims to being maximally great than your non-existent sky daddy.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 17, 2016 at 10:50 am
(This post was last modified: April 17, 2016 at 10:51 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
(April 17, 2016 at 4:50 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Neither is yhwh, I can easily conceive more maximally great beings than kne with great power but the morals of a spoiled child. Hell, I can point to historical people who have better claims to being maximally great than your non-existent sky daddy. Sure you can conceive greater beings than a sky daddy. So can I which is why your taunt in ineffective. The question is what is the greatest possible thing you can conceive? Have you tried yet?
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 17, 2016 at 10:59 am
Just for reference, this whole thing is a three-card scam and here's the gimmick:
1. God is defined as the maximally great being, greater than which cannot be conceived.
2. Ah, but I can conceive of a being greater than God.
3. Then this being, by default, becomes the maximally greatest being, thus must be God by definition.
See, this childish rhetorical wordplay is one of the reasons I don't bother.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 17, 2016 at 11:01 am
(This post was last modified: April 17, 2016 at 11:01 am by robvalue.)
I define the ratsnatchet to be a thing that exists and which disproves the existence of the Christian God.
Job done. I got plenty more too for the other gods.
Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 17, 2016 at 11:14 am
(This post was last modified: April 17, 2016 at 11:20 am by Crossless2.0.)
I've never really understood how the ontological argument helps Jews, Christians, or Muslims since the disconnect between what I can imagine as "maximally great" has so little to do with the parochial god described in the Bible. That believers somehow feel justified in bridging that chasm doesn't persuade or impress me in the least.
|
