Gramsci wrote:

galanter wrote:

Gramsci wrote:

galanter wrote:

Gramsci wrote:
I find this massively egotistical...

And your claim to have absolute certainty about the ultimate metaphysical nature of all reality is what? Circumspect and modest?

Certainly not, but neither do i make supernatural claims based on Iron Age beliefs.

I have no answers, but God is not in the gaps.

So you say. But you also say you have no answers.

C'mon...call yourself an agnostic already. It's almost defined as "I have no answers".

In terms that we can never know anything as an absolute certainly, that would make me "agnostic", however this isn't what you seem to be pushing for. It seems that you are expecting me to be an agnostic about a specific god, Yahweh, the god of Christians, Muslims and Jews.

I have no different in opinion of this particular god or Zeus or the flying Spaghetti Monster for that matter.

Can you give a reason why I should?

The difference is that claims about the flying spaghetti monster are claims about this or that object. It's a limited claim about a limited fact. Claims about God existing or not are claims about the ultimate structure of all reality. To claim the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist is to make a small claim with little further impact. To claim God doesn't exist is to make a claim to have certainty about the nature of all reality. It's a huge claim that impacts everything.

To me an atheist is an agnostic who hasn't realized yet they are over-reaching.

What I tend to say is "I don't see how I can know if God exists or not. It *feels* like he doesn't...I live my life like he doesn't...but I can't claim I *know* he doesn't."

I just don't feel competent to claim certainty about the nature of all reality.

How can you?

Can you answer my question?

The point you make about the nature of reality is from the Judo-Christian tradition...

This makes no sense, why is this particular angle more worthy of debate than other gods?

I can say with almost certainty that there is no god(s), in as must as I can be certain about anything.

What matters isn't whether a God is disprovable, it is whether a God is probable.

Gramsci wrote:Can you answer my question?

yeah, no shit, galanter.

how is it that the question of whether the flying spaghetti monster exists isn't also a claim about the nature of all reality? exactly how have you decided this?

Gramsci wrote:Can you answer my question?

The point you make about the nature of reality is from the Judo-Christian tradition...

This makes no sense, why is this particular angle more worthy of debate than other gods?

I can say with almost certainty that there is no god(s), in as must as I can be certain about anything.

What matters isn't whether a God is disprovable, it is whether a God is probable.

Arguing that one or another question is more or less worthy of debate isn't the issue. That has nothing to do with your ability to have certainty about the nature of the universe.

And I've never said anyone is obliged to consider the question of God. People are free to ignore the question of God. But if they choose to make a statement about God, and affirm that statement with certainty, then I'm free to point out the problems with that.

i.e. There is a difference between saying "I choose to not think about God" or "I choose to have no opinion about God" and "God doesn't exist".

Eierdiebe wrote:

Gramsci wrote:Can you answer my question?

yeah, no shit, galanter.

how is it that the question of whether the flying spaghetti monster exists isn't also a claim about the nature of all reality? exactly how have you decided this?

It's simply a matter of definition.

Assuming the flying spaghetti monster is akin to the notion of unicorns...

They are posited as contingent beings which come into existence due to pre-existing causes. i.e. they are slaves to cause and effect.

God is posited as being noncontingent, the prime cause behind everything else that exists. God doesn't come into existence due to something else. Rather God is the cause of everything else and a slave to nothing.

The flying spaghetti monster could exist or not and the universe would go on. It doesn't create the laws of physics or define the speed of light. But God is defined as the very ground of being itself.

So the flying spaghetti monster is just one of many things in the universe, and saying it exists says nothing about cats or dogs or much else.

God would be the ground from which all other things come into being. To say "God exists" is to say "here is a theory as to how the entire universe came into being and continues to exist".

Now please don't say "you're defining what God would be, but that doesn't prove he exists". Remember, I'm saying I don't know whether he exists. I'm just pointing out that saying something about God is saying a lot, because when you say something about God you're saying something about everything.

And again, I'm questioning whether anyone here is competent to make sweeping statements about the nature of everything.

galanter wrote:

Gramsci wrote:Can you answer my question?

The point you make about the nature of reality is from the Judo-Christian tradition...

This makes no sense, why is this particular angle more worthy of debate than other gods?

I can say with almost certainty that there is no god(s), in as must as I can be certain about anything.

What matters isn't whether a God is disprovable, it is whether a God is probable.

Arguing that one or another question is more or less worthy of debate isn't the issue. That has nothing to do with your ability to have certainty about the nature of the universe.

And I've never said anyone is obliged to consider the question of God. People are free to ignore the question of God. But if they choose to make a statement about God, and affirm that statement with certainty, then I'm free to point out the problems with that.

i.e. There is a difference between saying "I choose to not think about God" or "I choose to have no opinion about God" and "God doesn't exist".

Again you avoid the point. Why is this notion of a creator god you claim is possible of higher value than other gods. Zeus was regarded as the creator god at the time and Greek mythology is know regarded as literature... why is Yahweh any different?

In the other retort you make some very bold claims about the nature of a possible god, which you in turn define. Are you aware that it is you that are setting the frame of reference? You are making claims about the possibility of a creator god that has no evidence beyond the human mind offer the assumption that it is a possibility...

Everything we have discovered about the nature of the universe through the only method we have - science - in no way indicates that the god you speak of is probable.... and if this god were probably is opens an even bigger and cyclical question, "if god created the universe. then who created god?" To simple say, "god is a constant: makes no sense, you may as well say "rhubarb is a constant." This is lazy philosophy and a total copout.

I've pointed this to you before G, but this god of yours only can exist once the human mind dreams her up.

galanter wrote:And again, I'm questioning whether anyone here is competent to make sweeping statements about the nature of everything.

Yes, that would be you. As you are defining -whether you like it or not - this gods attributes. On top of that you are taking as if the likelihood of this god is as equal as the un-likeihood.

Your deism is cute, but very 19th century.

Gramsci wrote:Again you avoid the point. Why is this notion of a creator god you claim is possible of higher value than other gods. Zeus was regarded as the creator god at the time and Greek mythology is know regarded as literature... why is Yahweh any different?

Exactly. Galanter, you state that the Christian definition of "God" contains so much metaphysical meaning regarding the nature of the universe itself that God should be put on a higher pedestal than Zeus or Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but i'm sure if one were to study Norse or Greek mythology, there would be plenty of metaphysical theory in those stories as well. Hell, just glancing at the Norse Mythology overview on Wikipedia there's immediate talk of duality as the nature of the universe, and whatnot.

I think you need to take a semantic step back, Galanter. When you say "God" are you referring to the Christian representation of God or just some otherworldly force, be it God, Brahman, Nirvana, etc? Apologies if you've clarified this earlier in the thread; you could imagine that's gotten lost pretty easily in 20-some pages.

galanter wrote:Metaphysics meaning...

met‧a‧phys‧ics  /ˌmɛtəˈfɪzɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[met-uh-fiz-iks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun (used with a singular verb)
1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology.
2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches.
3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry.
4. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with first principles, the relation of universals to particulars, and the teleological doctrine of causation.

You consider all of this as nonsense?

Medieval philosophy was dominated by what was called 'metaphysics' in the Aristotelian sense for about six centuries until Immanuel Kant came in and brought down that house of cards. According to Kant, and to many post-Kantian philosophers, answers to questions about the origins of space and time are impossible--from an ontological point of view, it should be stressed, however, and not from the point of view of a scientist hypothesizing about the Big Bang. If you'd like me to explain to you why Kant thought this was the case, I will, but I presume that you probably already know.

That stuff is not "nonsense". It was conceived by geniuses and it's amazingly detailed and well-thought-out. It's just not true.

Gramsci wrote:

galanter wrote:And again, I'm questioning whether anyone here is competent to make sweeping statements about the nature of everything.

Yes, that would be you. As you are defining -whether you like it or not - this gods attributes. On top of that you are taking as if the likelihood of this god is as equal as the un-likeihood.

Your deism is cute, but very 19th century.

You constantly raise this complaint...and it's bogus. At least when applied to what I am saying.

There is nothing wrong, not even in science, in hypothesizing that something exists, and then seeking out evidence pro or con. And it would be sloppy to *not* define the hypothetical clearly.

For example, an astronomer might say "I hypothesize that there is a previously undiscovered planet. And I believe it will be at such and so coordinates at such and so time. And it will have an approximate mass of so many kilograms."

The hypothesis has nothing to do with whether the planet exists or not. And providing the hypothetical definition of the object (here by time. place, and mass) in no way should be mistaken for evidence that the object exists.

So when I say Gods attributes are such and so in this context, I'm not saying "God exists, and here are his attributes" I am saying "Here is what I mean when I say God, but such a God may or may not exist".

There is nothing illogical or unfair or misleading in doing this. It doesn't prove anything about such a God, but then *I don't claim to*.

*You* are making a claim to knowledge, not me.

(The Albini position ("why should I bother to even consider such a thing") is different than yours. You seem to be saying "I've considered the notion of God, and I believe he doesn't exist".

I'm suggesting that you can't have enough certainty to go that far. At best you can say "I remain unconvinced he exists". That's quite different than saying "He doesn't exist".