|
Post by general313 on Aug 3, 2018 14:58:41 GMT
What would you say are the necessary criteria for a Spinozist view of God? 1.God is all of existence. 2.God has no mind What functional difference could one expect to see between a universe as conceived by an atheist and a Spinozist universe? Is there a reason for Spinozists to bother talking about God, since it seems they view God and the universe synonymously?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Aug 3, 2018 19:06:01 GMT
1.God is all of existence. 2.God has no mind What functional difference could one expect to see between a universe as conceived by an atheist and a Spinozist universe? Is there a reason for Spinozists to bother talking about God, since it seems they view God and the universe synonymously? Functional difference? No, at least for most atheists. It's about semantic consistency, atheists believe in God and they don't know it. An atheist is someone who says "Me and John have the same parents but we aren't brothers".
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 3, 2018 20:32:30 GMT
What functional difference could one expect to see between a universe as conceived by an atheist and a Spinozist universe? Is there a reason for Spinozists to bother talking about God, since it seems they view God and the universe synonymously? Functional difference? No, at least for most atheists. It's about semantic consistency, atheists believe in God and they don't know it. An atheist is someone who says "Me and John have the same parents but we aren't brothers". That makes about as much sense as me defining Semprini to be the entire universe, then saying you believe in Semprini but don't know it.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Aug 3, 2018 21:20:58 GMT
Functional difference? No, at least for most atheists. It's about semantic consistency, atheists believe in God and they don't know it. An atheist is someone who says "Me and John have the same parents but we aren't brothers". That makes about as much sense as me defining Semprini to be the entire universe, then saying you believe in Semprini but don't know it. The Universe is the cause of all that is, was and ever will be. It has power over everything. If that isn't god then what is?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 3, 2018 22:47:48 GMT
That makes about as much sense as me defining Semprini to be the entire universe, then saying you believe in Semprini but don't know it. The Universe is the cause of all that is, was and ever will be. It has power over everything. If that isn't god then what is? That's a very bad argument, all your doing is using a very flimsy definition of "god". You could do that with pretty much anything ("God is actually cheese, atheists believe in cheese, therefore atheists actually believe in God and aren't really atheists'). All your doing is just really far reaching for what exactly constitutes a "god" and doing silly word play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 20:26:47 GMT
They are not useful because you have no standard to determine who is or is not "gnostic." You can just ask them. So what? This weird thing you have that only people expressing a positive belief for or against a proposition have any place debating it is nonsensical. You can assert that you believe in god for reasons X, Y and Z. I can converse in order to point out that X, Y and Z are wrong, or that they are right but do not validate the existence of god. Or any number of other things. Nothing about my taking part shows that I believe god does not exist. And demonstrating yet again that you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, there is a standard for the burden of proof. The standard is that a person who makes a positive claim has the burden to support that claim. I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. You've shown more lenience? Lenience doesn't enter into it. You can have whatever "standards" you like for what you accept or don't accept. But here's the thing : your standards and your opinion and your acceptance or lack of acceptance don't matter to the truth. Spiritual experiences are by definition subjective feelings. A person who experiences a feeling has actually experienced that feeling, whether you like it or not. I know you struggle with analogies, but this is like somebody telling you that their birthday party made them happy, and you replying "Well you may think that, but I have standards for what makes a person happy, and birthday parties just don't meet them. So no, you were not actually happy." You can feel that way if you like, but you're just making a fool of yourself again. Now none of this is to suggest in any way that a spiritual experience actually maps to reality. Myself, I tend to think that they do not (I can only guess that this is what you meant when you claimed I didn't show "lenience" towards spiritual experiences). Others disagree, and that's fine. So if somebody tells me that they had a near death experience and saw their dead relatives, and therefore they know there definitely is a heaven... I'm not going to accept that this means that there actually is a real place called heaven. But absolutely that was a real spiritual experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 20:28:32 GMT
That makes about as much sense as me defining Semprini to be the entire universe, then saying you believe in Semprini but don't know it. The Universe is the cause of all that is, was and ever will be. It has power over everything. If that isn't god then what is? Why do you discount the possibility that nothing is god because there is no god?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 5, 2018 1:01:02 GMT
Then the word "gnostic" means whatever any individual whosoever chooses it to mean. Then for 400 gnostics there could be 400 different definitions of what it means to be gnostic. In other words you have no definition whatever that can be applied with any consistent meaning. That is not a definition. I am fully aware that people can say things they do not believe. When they do it is called a lie. If they truly lack belief then they wouldn't speak out, unless it's because they are having a psychotic episode. Debates (unlike after dinner speeches) involve two sides each with a claim. If one side does not contest the claim of the other side then it has no claim of its own and the side that has a claim doesn't need to prove anything (an after dinner speech). A proof is only necessary when there is a counter claim. Now how do you decide who has the burden of proof since both sides have a claim? Suppose you claim that arsenic is not toxic, do you have no burden of proof since your claim is not "positive"? The person who claims it is toxic has to prove it is? Only severely mentally retarded and impoverished public school children who hate religion would say such a silly thing. Rather, as I explained several times, the burden of proof is on the side that challenges the "status quo." That status quo is that arsenic is toxic and any party challenging that fact has the burden of proof. That you have no standards means that what you say doesn't matter. That I have standards shows how what I say matters. They are often subjective, but not by definition. (Just saying.) I will decide whether their experience qualifies as "spiritual" by my definition of spiritual, what with my having a standard and all, whether you like it or not. Happiness is indeed entirely subjective, spirituality is not. So yours is a false analogy. Furthermore, people whose definition of "happiness" is different from mine might claim that I am not "really" happy by their definition even when I disagree. This might confuse you hopelessly, but individuals can have their own definitions, even 400 different ones for 400 different people, they are just not useful definitions where general audiences are concerned, as I explained above. If their dead relatives told them something they could not have known except by hearing from dead relatives, and that information could be verified, then that would be one sort of "spiritual" experience, if they did not learn anything at all from their experience they didn't already know, then that would be another sort of "spiritual," would it not? Notice that I have different terms for those different experiences. You still do not. One is "spiritual" the other is only "possibly" spiritual. That's how science works, since you didn't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 1:50:46 GMT
Then the word "gnostic" means whatever any individual whosoever chooses it to mean. Then for 400 gnostics there could be 400 different definitions of what it means to be gnostic. In other words you have no definition whatever that can be applied with any consistent meaning. That is not a definition. Amazing. Every single thing you just said is wrong. There is a definition. You simply need to ask people if they think they meet the definition. That does not mean there is more than one definition. No, no lie is needed. Again, are you just too stupid to grasp this point? I even quoted to you specific ways that it could be argued (which you edited out and ignored). Wrong again. A person who lacks belief can take part in a conversation very easily. Again, you appear to have a very firm belief that the only possible way to have a discussion is if one person asserts that X is true and the other asserts that X is false. That is untrue. It is possible, for instance, for one person to assert that X is true, and the other to take the position "You don't have a good reason to believe that X is true. It might be, but it might not." According to you, such people have to be quiet - and if they're not, then they must be lying and secretly believe that X is false. The only reason to believe this is that you are fundamentally ignorant of how people speak to one another. But the claims do not have to both be positive claims.
Let me put it in the simplest possible terms. I'll use short sentences and everything. As if you had the mind of a child :
You : "god exists." Me : "You don't have good reason to believe that." You : "That means you think god doesn't exist." Me : "No. I just think your reasons are not good."
According to you, that conversation is impossible. But there it is, anyway. There is always a counter claim. But the counter claim is not required to be a positive claim in opposition to yours. The counter claim can simply be "your argument is a weak one." Arlon, brace yourself : "Arsenic is not toxic" is a positive claim. "Arsenic is toxic" is also a positive claim.
BOTH of those claims carry a burden of proof.
But if you said "arsenic is not toxic" and I said "I don't think you have good reason to believe that", then the burden of proof is yours. I have no burden of proof.
Likewise, if you said "arsenic is toxic" and I said "I don't think you have good reason to believe that", then the burden of proof is yours. I still have no burden of proof.
And as I point out each time, this does nothing but demonstrate that you are fundamentally ignorant of how talking works.
When you tell another person that they didn't feel what they felt, the only standards that you are displaying is a low standard of understanding. Yes, by definition. Just correcting what you were just saying. And we arrive at the part of the thread where you decide that you need to invent new definitions of words to try and make yourself right. But spiritual experiences, which is what we're talking about, are. So you fail again. Nope. Again, you're mixing up the experience with whether the experience maps to reality. Once again : An experience is spiritual if it feels spiritual to the experiencer. That's it, that's the only criteria. Whether the experience has anything to do with reality is a different discussion. No, it would not. ROFL, the idea that you think you know how science works is the most absurd thing you've said in a thread full of absurd things you've said. You don't know how science works, Arlon. Not even remotely. And at risk of doing the equivalent of a kicking a puppy... "spiritual" and "possibly spiritual" are not actually two different terms. One is merely a qualification of the same term. Kind of like how I could call you ignorant, but you're really colossally ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 5, 2018 2:37:57 GMT
Suppose I say I own a Honda Accord. If you ask "What is a Honda Accord"?, then you lack belief whether I own one. If you have the slightest doubt I own one, that is how much you believe I do not own one. If the thought crosses your mind that I do not have one, that is a belief (however fleeting) that I do not have one. I think all blithering idiots should be quiet. We both know that's not going to happen soon. You are fundamentally ignorant of how many people really are blithering idiots. No, you believe my reasons are not good. There it is. See it yet? A mere child could. You have decided that your belief that my evidence is flawed is somehow privileged over my belief that it is not flawed. It is not. They are both beliefs one way or the other. Yours is no less a belief than mine. Unless one of them is the status quo, but you're getting warmer. No, I do not have the burden of proof simply because you ask for it. Again you have decided that your "thoughts" (beliefs) are somehow privileged and can demand respect. They are not privileged and might well be disrespected. I never said that. That is your misunderstanding. People who have no definitions or rules are really not in a position to complain. If you want to complain you need to bring something to the table. I don't mean a ditzy green dragon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 12:19:19 GMT
Suppose I say I own a Honda Accord. If you ask "What is a Honda Accord"?, then you lack belief whether I own one. Well, first off you've mixed up two different issues. If I don't know what a Honda Accord is then that's really separate from whether I believe that you own one. Nope. Once again, you have mixed up "I lack belief in X" and "I believe that X is untrue." That you made this mistake is is not that surprising, because in general usage "I don't believe X" is often used to mean "I believe X is not true". The reality is that they are two different things, however. And it is very strange that you still can't seem to grasp this even after it has been explained to you literally dozens of times. And yet here you are, still talking. Oh, I'm very aware of it. You are a constant reminder. You missed the point. I suggest you go back, re-read it, and try to understand it this time. I'm afraid I cannot make it easier for you, so if you can't get it at this point then there's really no point trying further. No, the burden of proof has nothing to do with "the status quo". Both of those statements carry a burden of proof because both of them are positive claims. The status quo is irrelevant to the burden of proof. No, you don't have a burden of proof in that example simply because I asked for it. You have the burden of proof in that example because you made a positive claim. That burden exists even if I don't ask for it. It exists even if you're just thinking about it yourself. This is not about one person or one person's thoughts being somehow more privileged or better treated than another. It applies even if it's just you, all by yourself, just thinking about it. Try to understand it - the burden of proof depends on whether a positive claim is being made. Just that, and nothing else. No, you have misunderstood what it is that we are talking about. Again, you don't seem to grasp the difference between an experience and whether the experience maps to truths about reality. I've been discussing both. You aren't smart enough to realise it, or to understand that the two are different things. Since there's nobody like that here, then you're using an odd non-sequiteur. He's a good deal smarter than you seem to be, so don't go dissing your intellectual superiors.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 5, 2018 13:43:13 GMT
Suppose I say I own a Honda Accord. If you ask "What is a Honda Accord"?, then you lack belief whether I own one. Well, first off you've mixed up two different issues. If I don't know what a Honda Accord is then that's really separate from whether I believe that you own one. Nope. Once again, you have mixed up "I lack belief in X" and "I believe that X is untrue." That you made this mistake is is not that surprising, because in general usage "I don't believe X" is often used to mean "I believe X is not true". The reality is that they are two different things, however. And it is very strange that you still can't seem to grasp this even after it has been explained to you literally dozens of times. And yet here you are, still talking. Oh, I'm very aware of it. You are a constant reminder. You missed the point. I suggest you go back, re-read it, and try to understand it this time. I'm afraid I cannot make it easier for you, so if you can't get it at this point then there's really no point trying further. No, the burden of proof has nothing to do with "the status quo". Both of those statements carry a burden of proof because both of them are positive claims. The status quo is irrelevant to the burden of proof. No, you don't have a burden of proof in that example simply because I asked for it. You have the burden of proof in that example because you made a positive claim. That burden exists even if I don't ask for it. It exists even if you're just thinking about it yourself. This is not about one person or one person's thoughts being somehow more privileged or better treated than another. It applies even if it's just you, all by yourself, just thinking about it. Try to understand it - the burden of proof depends on whether a positive claim is being made. Just that, and nothing else. No, you have misunderstood what it is that we are talking about. Again, you don't seem to grasp the difference between an experience and whether the experience maps to truths about reality. I've been discussing both. You aren't smart enough to realise it, or to understand that the two are different things. Since there's nobody like that here, then you're using an odd non-sequiteur. He's a good deal smarter than you seem to be, so don't go dissing your intellectual superiors. When we started this long ago there were lots of websites that support your views. Take a look around. Many of those have been chased off the internet. Using that measure, not that anyone should, I am winning this. People whose understanding of the meaning of words is as tenuous as yours might remain lost forever in the deep dark forest of their misunderstanding. They might continue to claim that I have the burden of proof as long as they do not believe me. A person has to be remarkably oblivious or arrogant or both to think such a thing, but there are such people. Although "I don't believe X" and "I believe X is not true" can indeed mean different things, they do not as you use them. I explained that a person who simply does not believe X can lack a belief but speaking out against X betrays the truth that the person believes X is not true. This is so obviously the case that you must be pretending not to understand it for whatever reasons. No one could possibly be that stupid in real life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 15:14:53 GMT
When we started this long ago there were lots of websites that support your views. Take a look around. Many of those have been chased off the internet. Lol, what the hell are you talking about? Name four websites which "support my views" and which have been "chased off the internet". Go on. Just four. Hell, let's make it three. I want to be easy on you, so that when you completely fail it will be really obvious that you were lying. Then why are you? Is it because you're stupid? You're not "winning" because this isn't a debatable point. This is me explaining a mistake you've made to you. I'm not the one who feels the need to invent my own meanings of words, Arlon. Progress! Yes, they do as I use them. You are desperate to pretend that I use them the way you want me to, indeed that everyone does. This is purely because you want to assign me a burden of proof when I don't have one. That's all any of this is about. And I've explained to you that you are utterly wrong in this claim. Absolutely, totally, 100% wrong. Not only that, but you're wrong purely for your own convenience. I understand what you're saying fine, Arlon. I'm merely pointing out the even more obvious fact that what you are saying is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 5, 2018 15:40:40 GMT
When we started this long ago there were lots of websites that support your views. Take a look around. Many of those have been chased off the internet. Lol, what the hell are you talking about? Name four websites which "support my views" and which have been "chased off the internet". Go on. Just four. Hell, let's make it three. I want to be easy on you, so that when you completely fail it will be really obvious that you were lying. You're being too easy on him. All he has to do is make up 3 bogus URLs that don't exist and never existed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 19:43:23 GMT
Lol, what the hell are you talking about? Name four websites which "support my views" and which have been "chased off the internet". Go on. Just four. Hell, let's make it three. I want to be easy on you, so that when you completely fail it will be really obvious that you were lying. You're being too easy on him. All he has to do is make up 3 bogus URLs that don't exist and never existed. I'll be intrigued to see him demonstrate that they represent my views. Given that he's frequently demonstrated that he doesn't understand what my views are.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 5, 2018 19:58:10 GMT
Lol, what the hell are you talking about? Name four websites which "support my views" and which have been "chased off the internet". Go on. Just four. Hell, let's make it three. I want to be easy on you, so that when you completely fail it will be really obvious that you were lying. I think it's already been pretty solidly established that Arlon not only lies all the time, but doesn't have the moral substance to realize this isn't a good or wise thing to do. He'll never give you the information because like so much of what he says, it was pulled directly out of his ass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 20:09:39 GMT
Lol, what the hell are you talking about? Name four websites which "support my views" and which have been "chased off the internet". Go on. Just four. Hell, let's make it three. I want to be easy on you, so that when you completely fail it will be really obvious that you were lying. I think it's already been pretty solidly established that Arlon not only lies all the time, but doesn't have the moral substance to realize this isn't a good or wise thing to do. He'll never give you the information because like so much of what he says, it was pulled directly out of his ass. I go back and forth on whether Arlon is a flat-out liar, or so stupid that he doesn't understand the things he's saying. Maybe a combination.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 6, 2018 11:30:16 GMT
You've heard of Captain Obvious. There's one in commercials for Hotels.com now. You, @graham , are Captain Oblivious. You are oblivious of the pros and cons of argumentum ad populum. So I'll tell you. Sometimes the majority is wrong, especially on issues not for government. Whether right or wrong they have power that comes from their large numbers. It can be necessary then should they stray from truth to bring them back to the truth. Bringing them back to the truth is my job. My success is gradual. At one time there were websites that described the burden of proof as being on "the person making the claim" or "positive" claim. Not so much are there now. There are still websites that attempt, hopeless as it is in this modern age, to assign people to gnostic or agnostic categories. You have admitted you have no criteria whatsoever for doing that, yet still pretend it makes any sense. You are oblivious of the difference between facts and opinions. You believe, or at least claim to believe, that your opinions have the force of facts and that others have to prove you wrong. Even after you have been proved wrong you refuse to acknowledge it. You think you're entitled to your own facts. You never learned the lesson that you're entitled to your own opinions, but are not really entitled to your own facts. You appear to believe that you can "think" there is no god, say so in debates, and still pretend that you lack "belief" there is no god, even as you become more vociferous in those debates. The only way that is possible is for you to delude yourself that unless you yourself approve testimony it may not even be considered. You imagine that all that is supported by science and logic. It is not. You have demonstrated time and again that you are not capable of science or logic. You are not a teacher (not here anyway). You are not showing reason for you beliefs. You are a soldier defending beliefs you don't even realize are beliefs. They are ideas that are certainly not your own work. They are ideas that took authority through their large numbers and had become somewhat entrenched. As a soldier you continue to defend them. They are only now being compelled to address logic, however much you claim you do not have to demonstrate any logic. Teachers and Soldiers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 13:58:09 GMT
You've heard of Captain Obvious. There's one in commercials for Hotels.com now. You, @graham , are Captain Oblivious. You are oblivious of the pros and cons of argumentum ad populum. No. I am merely pointing out the fact that this is utterly irrelevant to the conversation which we have been having. I predicted that you would not be able to name these websites or how they were "chased off the internet". Of course, I was right. FWIW, there are still plenty of websites that describe the burden of proof accurately. Though I don't know why you even continue with this line since you've already said yourself that it proves nothing. Nope. You are the one who thinks that opinions somehow become facts if enough people hold them; I am the one pointing out that you are wrong about this.
Arlon, you are demonstrating once again that you have no clue what you're talking about.
To my knowledge I have never, not once in my entire life, said the words "there is no god." Not in a debate, not in a conversation, not in passing. The reason I don't say those words is that I do not believe that statement.
I have, in fact, had arguments with people who claim that they believe there is no god. Arguments in which I challenged them to support their belief, and attempted to show that their reasons were not good ones.
So. Are you too stupid to understand what I'm talking about? Or are you just a damn liar? Those are the only possibilities.
Coming from a man who has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't know what either science or logic are, this is a meaningless statement. Coming from a man who has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't even know what my beliefs are, and appears to lack the IQ to understand them no matter how clearly or often they are explained, this is also a meaningless statement. Arlon... you're that most common of things. You're a dumbass who doesn't understand that he's a dumbass. Or you're a damn liar who is trying hard to make believers look like morons.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 6, 2018 22:01:25 GMT
That is not what I said. You think I did because you can't follow a discussion including various types of arguments. It gets too complicated for you. I said it years ago but not recently, so I'll say it again here. There are actually two ways you can "lack" belief in a god. One is to sit quietly at debates about the existence of god without saying anything. There is another. You may ask questions. I have always held that you may ask questions even in a lack of belief. If by "attempted to show that their reasons were not good ones" you mean you merely asked questions, then yes you can do that even in a lack of belief. I have always granted that. What you cannot do is make any statements from your belief there is no god. You may make statements off topic, on the weather, on the price of coffee, and still "lack" belief in a god. If you make a statement to show that there is no god, and you are not lying, then you have some belief that there is no god. Your statement could be wrong just as well as anyone's could, because after all it is just something you believe. I have not read all the messages on this board. I do not have time. If you legitimately merely asked questions in your lack of belief I am not aware of those messages. I am only aware of the statements made by various atheists here in attempts to prove there is no god, which I have explained shows that they believe there is no god, despite their claim to lack a belief. To make things more clear, let's examine some example questions and statements. "There is no evidence for the existence of god (./?)," statement or question? Obviously claiming there is no evidence is a statement, not a question. It also happens to be an incorrect statement. "Why doesn't god show me this evidence (./?)," statement or question? That one is indeed a question, and yes you may ask that question even in a lack of belief. It has been explained to you that evidence and proofs can exist to which you are not a party and they are no less proofs to those witnesses who were present. In all my experience here I have only seen a very few posters who honestly lack a belief in a god. You are not one of them. The existence of three different concepts of a god have been shown in this article. (See the paragraph just before the last one.) Let's see how well you can dispute those.
|
|