sunlore wrote:An expression like "God is conciousness and the ground of all being" is meaningless in both Wittgenstein I and Wittgenstein II. But really I don´t want to get into that.

Not sure that that's entirely true. My interpretation about what he says in Philosophical Investigations would have him characterize this statement as at least having a sort of ceremonious meaning, an active meaning. I mean active in the most literal sense - the saying in itself is an act representative of a behaviour or disposition i.e. the behaviour or disposition of having faith in god. Any scientist who says "Rationality is the essence of truth" behaves in the same way. That is to say: his statement reflects no further truth than that which is true of his disposition to interpret the world. Any further truth to such a statement would have to be accorded culturally.

I'm not saying that all scientists do make such comments. I'm not saying that religion and science are two equal (in whichever terms you like, equally rational, equally suitable, equally whateverthefuckable) systems for understanding the world. I'm with the scientists, personally. I'm just saying that perhaps a lot of statements made about science, hypotheses posited in theorems, require a sort of blind faith not far detached from faith-based assertions common to religion.

This post is amazing. You just mention old Wittgenstein and it's world war 3 again. Anyhows...

solum wrote:

Gramsci wrote:

solum wrote:... horrible stupid bastard.

Ok, aside from you acting like a childish retard, pray-tell explain why there is reason and logic in invoking flawed mythology?

If this is some kind of purely epistemological argument, fine, enter into the realm of the nonexistent and I'll see you on the other side.

Oh, and fix your post so it doen't make screen do that, it's fucking annoying for everyone.

FUCK YOU!

edit: I am aware of how stupid it is to get so angry. But I really am. So, this will be my last post. I like the idea that my last one will be the 500th. Seeyalater.

Whoa! This guy's got discipline! He really never came back!

Loser!

At this point everyone is just repeating themselves. And so I will too.
But I think we are close to done, and I'll likely not respond here again today.

The notion that an agnostic, by simply saying "I don't know if God exists or not" is contradicting himself, or committing some other logical fallacy, or is even making an assumption of any kind, seems absurd to me.

If I say "I don't know if unicorns exist or not" I'm not positing the existence of unicorns, I'm only saying there is a hypothetical creature that may or may not exist, and I know not which. One could say this about *any* hypothetical being or object. .

In this context I am not the one making a special plea for God. I'm saying consider God as you would any other hypothetical object or entity. Call it "item X". Its seems entirely rational to me to say "Either item X exists or it doesn't" (allowing for quantum mechanical caveats) and it seems entirely reasonable to say "Either you know whether or not item X exists or you don't" (same caveat).

(Any invocation of quantum mechanical effects here will just push you closer to agnostic-land so I'd advise against it).

There is no special plea being made for God here. In fact I would say the would-be criticism you are making is asking for exceptional consideration, because I doubt you would say the statements "I don't know if flying saucers exist" or "I don't know if unicorns exist" are somehow assuming things about flying saucers or unicorns or insisting that special rules apply to flying saucers or unicorns.

Gramsci wrote:Whoa! This guy's got discipline! He really never came back!

Loser!

Discipline? Or Russcipline?

galanter wrote:

If I say "I don't know if unicorns exist or not" I'm not positing the existence of unicorns, I'm only saying there is a hypothetical creature that may or may not exist, and I know not which. One could say this about *any* hypothetical being or object. .

.....

There is no special plea being made for God here. In fact I would say the would-be criticism you are making is asking for exceptional consideration, because I doubt you would say the statements "I don't know if flying saucers exist" or "I don't know if unicorns exist" are somehow assuming things about flying saucers or unicorns or insisting that special rules apply to flying saucers or unicorns.

See here is the problem, you are being hypocritical. Earlier you said that, “It would be easy for you if we were talking about anything, but we’re not”, now you say the opposite. You made a case for the “commonly held definition”, but once that position failed to stand-up to questioning you’ve switched to the ol’ epistemological “how can we really know anything.” Yet earlier you’ve clearly discounted this as “making it easy” for us to defeat your argument.

You tried to say that the agnostic view is not just a “how can we really know anything” argument, yet when pressed this becomes the only get-out.

You’re other escape is to suddenly ask me to disprove this God. Well obviously if we look at it from your points above, I’ll admit I cannot. Because, well… none of us can really be 100% certain of anything. However, you argued that this “everything” angle was not the one you are taking.

You’ve painted yourself into a corner.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

Gramsci wrote:Whoa! This guy's got discipline! He really never came back!

Loser!

Discipline? Or Russcipline?

Good grief, there is a difference. Pray tell!

I am super-embarrassed about this. I meant to "quote", this text, and instead mis-clicked the "edit" button. I don't know how to fix this. I'm sorry Phil. Sorry. I will delete your post and re-post this quote under my name.
-steve

Brief interlude:

Who the fuck in thediscoking and does s/he know about the world of shit they have created, right here in this little corner of the interweb?

Maybe it was God?

I am super-embarrassed about this. I meant to "quote", this text, and instead mis-clicked the "edit" button. I don't know how to fix this. I'm sorry Phil. Sorry. I will delete your post and re-post this quote under my name.
-steve

Phil, a pretty smart guy, wrote:But here is where God starts to become a special case. Science is a good tool for examining things of this world. It is not a good tool for examining things which are not of this world.

Phil, this is where it turns to shit. This concession that there are things which are "not of this world." Why, oh why, would anyone grant such an absurd presumption? Why?

If we only know of "this world," and we can explain almost everything using the tools of "this world," and there is no reason to believe that there is anything beyond "this world," why do you indulge the preposterous, for the sake of things which are "not of this world?" Why?

Show me a little piece of this "other" existence, not of this world, and I'll drop all my objections. A little piece is all I need. A drop of "other" water, a wisp of "other" information. Anything at all, really. You can't? Because it isn't "of this world?" Then why should I even ponder its existence, if it has nothing to do with me? It can go fuck itself, because there is no reason to think it is even there.

yes
i agree. i find any spiritual reality that is not of this world in the sense used above as useless and without any draw. I hesitate to post on the god side of any thread that also is discussing ID as I really hate the ideas of these folks. But I have been listening and can't help imagining that maybe something helpful could come of this kind of thread. (a hope I suspect that is without any historical ground)
I think I will start by saying I don't think I fall into any of master gramsci's three categories but remain, as it were, an alledged stumbling block to the advent of human progress.
I think critically. A claim we can test as this goes along since most of you don't know me at all. Anyway I think it would be hard to put me in the child like camp though I hardly equate childlike with the slur you seem to imply at times.
I have not just squinted at the challenges to "religous" ideas. I deconstruct my beliefs as my breakfast each morning. (maybe with some secret reservation but maybe not) My "religious" imagination, the backround music for my choices and self stories seems quite mutable but not in a protean spineless way. In a way that when self criticism demands a paiinful price to keep intellectual honesty or human honor I think I pay. Though maybe I have delayed payments on occasion, lingering and waiting for company, eventually I pay-with or with out consensus. One might say I am merely in the process of moving from theism to atheism at a slow pace but I don't think so. I find some sort of haunting at the ground of my reality but that is later subject.
The third class of "believers" I am quite familar with. I think I was one for a while though that seems like a distant dream and I would like to hope I was always different from that certainty I despise. Though thinking of some of the things I said long ago I guess I was in that fog. Yeah, enogh to know I am not anymore. Anyway there is a lot of talk going on here and maybe I shouldn't interupt. I think I won't unpack alot at once. I will just say there are some of us who just find this haunted observed quality to the universe to be inseperable from ourselves at an almost organic level. I suppose that sounds easy to reduce especially physiologically but I would find such a dismissal suspect. I know I haven't really given much in all these words. I guess I was wondering if anyone would even be interested in hearing and talking anymore about this. Some of the comments indicate that folks are growing bored. I would hate to add to the boredom.
Andrew