DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[elder999]

Furthermore, infinite by definition is limitless. Which means it includes and even transcends what we call good and evil. To label something as all good and yet call it to be infinite is a absurdity. And that was my point, nothing more, nothing less.

More to the point, a being such as a "Creator," who existed before the universe-which would also be, scientifically speaking, before time-must, by implication, be outside of the universe and time-outside of our space-time. This is the minimum prerequisite for postulating such a being, scientifically. If the being is outside of our space-time, then it is, by further implication, unable to be observed, tested or disproven-discounting any forays, occasional, continual, real or imagined, into our space-time.

Transcending good and evil is only part of it. Such a being would transcend virtually ALL.

 

[Jenna]

I cannot say how impressed I am with some of the posts on here. There are some obvious GLARING logical faux pas and but there are some PHENOMENAL pieces of lucidity, wisdom and coherent argument. Thank you.. I am enjoying this very much. Sorry.. do not mean to interrupt the flow.. Jenna over and out..

 

[celtic_crippler]

This was discussed in the Dawkins-Collins debate.

 

[elder999]

This was discussed in the Dawkins-Collins debate.

Making it on-topic, and a point that Dawkins concedes himself. Don't think his issue is with "God," as much as it is the need for "God," and religion, which is, after all, man-made. He readily misapplies the notion of Ockham's Razor to God, and determines that God is superfluous, which, for science, God is-for the time being, anyway.....

 

[Xinglu]

Unless the passage is an allegory for the differing natures of God. That cycles back to the fundamental issue of this debate....

Which makes the biblical literalists insane :wink:

What is allegorical what is not, and how do we determine what is and isn't? The Church? Are they agenda free and therefore trust worthy in their neutrality towards interpretation?

Ourself? Are we truly neutral or are we just reading it the way we want it to be read.

Looking at the evidence I believe that evolution is viable. If I assumed the existence of God then I would also have to assume the creation story is allegorical.

The problem arises when a church holds that the Bible is the literal word of God. That means the creation story is assumed to be literal and true, therefore all other things despite the evidence is a lie (probably created by the Devil).

However the literalists run into the problem of Divinity and Evil. How can satan have any power is God doesn't permit it? If he permits the power, how could he be all Good? If he does not, how could he be all powerful? Then that opens up the question what is a god? Could Satan with all of his powers and abilities be considered a God? Dogmatically, any monotheist will say unequivocally no, but why?

What is allegorical what is not? That is a real problem in Christianity (religion in general IMHO) today. Is Hell an allegory? if so for what? Purgatory? Is God an allegory?

 

[blindsage]

Actually I am Taking my own into account. In order to talk about God, one must assume (even if it is for argument's sake) that a God exists or does not. First, we must come to an agreed upon definition of "good" and "evil" secondly, the argument must include the definition that the "believers" agree on as well as it is their God and their dogma. Words must mean what they mean or communication cannot be had. When talking about religion, one must use the religion in questions definitions in order communicate effectively with the believer. Which means for arguments sake, we must use their definition of good and evil.

I did not conclude "only x." I pointed out that using the believer's definitions leads to a non-cogent assertion.

Modern Christianity exists today and is relevant. So of course I use it's assertions. Why wouldn't I? The context of the conversation is predominately Christianity and it's views on good and evil, creation, and evolution. I don't see Muslims putting forth their views, Although some Jews have chimed in, they have not presented any official Jewish positions. I have only put forth what is relevant for the conversation. Which has already made a ton of assumptions just in it's very existence and continuation.

Furthermore, infinite by definition is limitless. Which means it includes and even transcends what we call good and evil. To label something as all good and yet call it to be infinite is a absurdity. And that was my point, nothing more, nothing less.

So please, you seem to imply that you know my philosophy: what is my philosophy then? Tell me what it is I believe.

If you are talking about God and for the sake of argument presuming the possibility of His existence, then you cannot only take into account the beliefs and arguments of a single group's proposition. You must look at what would be logical based on that initial assumption, not just what one group's arguments are. That is a logical fallacy. You may be able to demonstrate a lack in logic in a group or individual's argument, demonstrating that their logic doesn't hold up based on the initial assumption, but you cannot then argue that those flawed arguments then prove the initial assumption wrong. Again, bad logic.

You've already demonstrated your assumptions. Infinity transcends good and evil. All good = infinity is an absurdity. Those are definitional assumptions. A theist could easily argue back that good and evil are subjectively defined and if God is making the definition that what is infinite = what is good then that is God's definition not man's. You assume all definitions come from man. Theists don't. This is a difference of assumptions. Your assumptions are not any more rational than the next person's, they are just assumptions.

 

[blindsage]

More to the point, a being such as a "Creator," who existed before the universe-which would also be, scientifically speaking, before time-must, by implication, be outside of the universe and time-outside of our space-time. This is the minimum prerequisite for postulating such a being, scientifically. If the being is outside of our space-time, then it is, by further implication, unable to be observed, tested or disproven-discounting any forays, occasional, continual, real or imagined, into our space-time.

Transcending good and evil is only part of it. Such a being would transcend virtually ALL.

So does this disprove the existence of God, or just certain believers rationale's about God's nature and relationship to man.

 

[Xinglu]

More to the point, a being such as a "Creator," who existed before the universe-which would also be, scientifically speaking, before time-must, by implication, be outside of the universe and time-outside of our space-time. This is the minimum prerequisite for postulating such a being, scientifically. If the being is outside of our space-time, then it is, by further implication, unable to be observed, tested or disproven-discounting any forays, occasional, continual, real or imagined, into our space-time.

Transcending good and evil is only part of it. Such a being would transcend virtually ALL.

Bingo!

 

[elder999]

So does this disprove the existence of God, or just certain believers rationale's about God's nature and relationship to man.

Well.....neither!

 

[Xinglu]

More to the point, a being such as a "Creator," who existed before the universe-which would also be, scientifically speaking, before time-must, by implication, be outside of the universe and time-outside of our space-time. This is the minimum prerequisite for postulating such a being, scientifically. If the being is outside of our space-time, then it is, by further implication, unable to be observed, tested or disproven-discounting any forays, occasional, continual, real or imagined, into our space-time.

Transcending good and evil is only part of it. Such a being would transcend virtually ALL.

So does this disprove the existence of God, or just certain believers rationale's about God's nature and relationship to man.

The point is not to disprove God, it just shows the absurdity of certain believers which doesn't disprove their beliefs, but does show the inconsistency in what is put forth as it is.

 

[elder999]

The point is not to disprove God, it just shows the absurdity of certain believers.

And the absurdity of certain disbelievers as well, I'm afraid. If such a being exists, and can neither be proven or disproven (objectively, anyway), then what's the point of constantly saying,Where's the proof? Where's the proof?? :lfao:

 

[blindsage]

The point is not to disprove God, it just shows the absurdity of certain believers which doesn't disprove their beliefs, but does show the inconsistency in what is put forth as it is.

I'm comfortable with that. Challenge away! :duel:

 

[Xinglu]

If you are talking about God and for the sake of argument presuming the possibility of His existence, then you cannot only take into account the beliefs and arguments of a single group's proposition. You must look at what would be logical based on that initial assumption, not just what one group's arguments are. That is a logical fallacy. You may be able to demonstrate a lack in logic in a group or individual's argument, demonstrating that their logic doesn't hold up based on the initial assumption, but you cannot then argue that those flawed arguments then prove the initial assumption wrong. Again, bad logic.

You've already demonstrated your assumptions. Infinity transcends good and evil. All good = infinity is an absurdity. Those are definitional assumptions. A theist could easily argue back that good and evil are subjectively defined and if God is making the definition that what is infinite = what is good then that is God's definition not man's. You assume all definitions come from man. Theists don't. This is a difference of assumptions. Your assumptions are not any more rational than the next person's, they are just assumptions.

You are missing the point. In a conversation with a Christian - discussing concepts of other gods is a failing practice as it is summarily rejected on it's head. You must then debate them using their terms and their scriptures to illustrate whether their assertions may or may not be cogent with their scriptures or dogma. The same would be true for any religion.

"You may be able to demonstrate a lack in logic in a group or individual's argument, demonstrating that their logic doesn't hold up based on the initial assumption..." That is all I am doing here. You are making it out to be far more than it really is.

If God Transcends Good and evil, then it doesn't matter what they define Good and Evil to be. It wouldn't even matter that it is an ever changing definition. Because it would always be transcended.

And if we use the God defined definitions then we need look no further then the theists scriptures to determine good and evil as outlined by their God. Then use those to see if their is consistency in their beliefs with their scriptures.

 

[blindsage]

I get where you're coming from now. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[celtic_crippler]

And the absurdity of certain disbelievers as well, I'm afraid. If such a being exists, and can neither be proven or disproven (objectively, anyway), then what's the point of constantly saying,Where's the proof? Where's the proof?? :lfao:

Because the believers are constantly in your face with it, shoving it down your throat, trying to get you to believe it as well. Some people just want proof before they'll believe something...

If you're not one of those people, fine. I have some quality real estate down in Florida to sell you. :shrug:

The burden of proof isn't on the nonbeliever, it's on the believer.

...just sayin'...

 

[Xinglu]

I get where you're coming from now. Thanks for clarifying.

Thanks for asking :asian:

 

[Xinglu]

Because the believers are constantly in your face with it, shoving it down your throat, trying to get you to believe it as well. Some people just want proof before they'll believe something...

If you're not one of those people, fine. I have some quality real estate down in Florida to sell you. :shrug:

The burden of proof isn't on the nonbeliever, it's on the believer.

...just sayin'...

So long as we can say that Believer includes Atheists and Theists I would agree. Both believe things on opposite ends of the spectrum, Both have concluded something about God. So, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.

 

[Omar B]

You are missing the point. In a conversation with a Christian - discussing concepts of other gods is a failing practice as it is summarily rejected on it's head. You must then debate them using their terms and their scriptures to illustrate whether their assertions may or may not be cogent with their scriptures or dogma. The same would be true for any religion.

"You may be able to demonstrate a lack in logic in a group or individual's argument, demonstrating that their logic doesn't hold up based on the initial assumption..." That is all I am doing here. You are making it out to be far more than it really is.

If God Transcends Good and evil, then it doesn't matter what they define Good and Evil to be. It wouldn't even matter that it is an ever changing definition. Because it would always be transcended.

And if we use the God defined definitions then we need look no further then the theists scriptures to determine good and evil as outlined by their God. Then use those to see if their is consistency in their beliefs with their scriptures.

Yeah, every other god but theirs is as ridiculous as the Easter Bunny.

To me, they are all the Easter Bunny though.

 

[arnisador]

Ok, so Sukerkin's right, I'm obviously not asking the question correctly. I'm asking on a very personal basic level, where does the information you use to make rational decisions come from? How do you gather your evidence?

Through the senses? I'm not sure what you want here. If we can't trust our senses--if we might just be brains in vats--we cannot hope to draw interesting conclusions. Ruling that out both for lack of evidence and for the logical impossibility of proving it false, we gather sense-data and act on that information, in part via logic and in part by trial-and-error (experiment). I'm in line with the thoughts in the beginning of Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy on this one.

 

[Andrew Green]

Yeah, every other god but theirs is as ridiculous as the Easter Bunny.

To me, they are all the Easter Bunny though.

Can you prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist? That seems to be the direction a few people are going here... If you can't then you have no more evidence to support your lack of belief then another does to support their belief in the Easter Bunny.