Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 19, 2022, 1:47 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
#11
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
Yeah, you're stuck at the word go with this one. People aren't starting an argument with the, "All is one" schtick. It is a thing known as a deepity - "A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial."

Also language has quirks to it such that, while a sentence is grammatically correct it is also profoundly meaningless and when that occurs sometimes the brain will go haywire trying to apply meaning to something that could and should be rejected outright. One of my favorite demonstrations of this is the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". The wiki entry expounds on what is going on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_..._furiously

It is part of why I am an theological noncognitivist. I believe that the idea of God is so nebulous and undifined that ANY argument for the existence of God/god or gods pretty much is a non starter. I still enjoy engaging with theists sometimes based on part of their idea but inevitably the goal posts move all over the place!
Reply
#12
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
All is one.
"Yes, we are all part of the same one universe."

No, I meant we are all part of the same one god.
"What god are you talking about ?"

They attempt to describe this god
"I have no idea what you are talking about"
Insanity - Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result
Reply
#13
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
Please provide testable and repeatable evidence for this god
The meek shall inherit the Earth, the rest of us will fly to the stars.

Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud ..... after a while you realise that the pig likes it!

Reply
#14
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
'All is one' is simply a statement of belief, which when talking of all that we can see and have knowledge about is kind of true.
However if you wish to add something spiritual into an 'all is one' you have to supply a reason and proof for doing so.
'Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid'
Reply
#15
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
Is that the One Electron Universe?
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
Reply
#16
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
We are all one.  Fined.  

Please explain in detail why what you say next really follows from any careful examination of this oneness to which you refer?




(October 6, 2020 at 8:09 am)Sal Wrote: Is that the One Electron Universe?

The one electron field universe?
Reply
#17
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
Dude, what if we are all just one time traveler that uses uteruses to go back into the past and be born as a person only to go back to their original point in time after they die?

I think that would make me extremely Pro-Life!
Reply
#18
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
[Image: 3BbW38R6odDT5dEpPXXcwJdFOU80Cn5r3vCLhRqI...WfBKENap1Y]
Reply
#19
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
Ask them, "All is one what?"
[Image: Fenrir-sign.jpg]
Reply
#20
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
(October 5, 2020 at 10:05 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Yeah, you're stuck at the word go with this one. People aren't starting an argument with the, "All is one" schtick. It is a thing known as a deepity - "A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial."

Also language has quirks to it such that, while a sentence is grammatically correct it is also profoundly meaningless and when that occurs sometimes the brain will go haywire trying to apply meaning to something that could and should be rejected outright. One of my favorite demonstrations of this is the sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". The wiki entry expounds on what is going on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_..._furiously

It is part of why I am an theological noncognitivist. I believe that the idea of God is so nebulous and undifined that ANY argument for the existence of God/god or gods pretty much is a non starter. I still enjoy engaging with theists sometimes based on part of their idea but inevitably the goal posts move all over the place!

Thank you! This is kind of where I'm at. Linguistically, the statement is too extreme to really have any meaning. If taken at a dialed back view, like "all is one substance." or "all is one energy." then it is reasonable, but no longer mystical. 

"All is one." taken in it's most extreme form would be, experientially, like saying "I recorded a normal camera melt into a volcano's lava to see all as one, with the camera that melted only." No you didn't, you got 30 seconds of footage from an intact camera, then the feed cut off because a camera that is one with lava cannot be said to be filming the lava. Likewise, if you melted into a blob of oneness in the most extreme and literal sense, that cannot be said to be an experience at all.

(October 5, 2020 at 6:07 pm)Osopatata Wrote: This is a tactic that some have used when discussing religion with me: They say they have had a meditative experience and realized all is one, or otherwise postulate that all is one for some other reason. That oneness for no logical reason is extrapolated to be a magical, mystical thing that validates religious views.

It becomes a stone wall when one may try to question the validity of a religious view, but it is explained by something beyond normal understanding like "all is one." So the conversation is blocked off completely unless one can refute this position and demonstrate that it is utterly untenable, and so the opponent must then defend their religious views in terms that do not go into realms of illogical postulations.

Seems to me there are some seriously fatal flaws in the logic of such a position as "all is one". However I am far from a logician. Could anyone offer some refutations that invalidate such a view?

I see your point, so, everything else aside, they say "All is one, therefore my consciousness will survive death and live forever. So does everyone's. We are all immortal because of this oneness." There must be some flaw in this logic? Surely this is possible to disprove and demonstrate as totally untenable?

(October 5, 2020 at 6:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I'm not sure it can be refuted.  I'm also not convinced that it is necessary to even try.

Boru

Ok, I think I didn't give enough info. Here's a fuller statement that I've dealt with "All is one. Therefore my consciousness will survive death and I and everyone else are immortal."

Can that be refuted?

(October 5, 2020 at 7:04 pm)brewer Wrote: On an atomic and/or subatomic level the argument "all is one" may be considered valid. Everything is made of stuff.

But on a day to day basis I don't consciously exist at that level and consider the position silly.

Ok, so the full issue that I'm now realizing I should have elaborated on in my op is that the extrapolation involves immortality for these people: "All is one, therefore my consciousness will survive death and I will live forever. Ditto for everyone else." Followed by more and more mystical magical talk.

(October 5, 2020 at 8:40 pm)Grandizer Wrote: The claim itself isn't necessarily wrong and isn't a big deal imo. All is one. Ok, and? Why must this be a religious thing exclusively?

We should never be in the mindset that we need to refute what other (aka religious) people say, unless we see something fallacious about it. Otherwise, it's ok to [sort of] agree with what they say and/or to ask for clarifications on what they're talking about.

I have failed you all and not included the full extrapolation made by these people I've spoken with. The full issue goes like this "All is one. So my consciousness will survive death. So does everyone's. We are all immortal." And this, of course, to them proves the existence of god, the afterlife, etc.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ? Klorophyll 225 4778 April 17, 2022 at 2:11 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Two scenarios that may/may not happen. RayOfLight 85 12325 November 2, 2017 at 8:46 pm
Last Post: Crossless2.0
  I think my mother may be becoming an atheist, advice? IanHulett 22 4530 October 17, 2015 at 5:09 pm
Last Post: abaris
Video VenomFangX Attempts to Refute Atheist Arguments Mental Outlaw 18 3012 August 19, 2015 at 1:19 pm
Last Post: robvalue
  Religious bumper stickers and other annoying religious actions. (rant, sorta) DIRTY_DEEDS_93 53 10925 May 25, 2015 at 4:13 pm
Last Post: Cephus
  The more troubling fact is not that this may be genuine, but that it's hard to doubt Mudhammam 16 4688 August 13, 2014 at 1:50 pm
Last Post: Lucanus
  Atheist YouTube channel you may not have heard of Sejanus 2 1182 June 9, 2014 at 10:58 am
Last Post: Clueless Morgan
  Can Atheists and Religious people be one? Phatt Matt s 14 3217 March 28, 2014 at 5:03 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Why Agnostic Atheism may not be the most logical stance. Mystic 36 10583 March 1, 2014 at 10:50 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
Tongue If there is no God, then, one may ask DOS 137 15746 December 12, 2013 at 8:37 am
Last Post: Brian37



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)