Do you believe in a god that is

[trish]

If one hypothesized a being outside of any space and any time, then one could not speak of that being using spatial or temporal terms. That being could not be responsible for creating the universe in which we dwell because creation is a temporal notion.
This thread opens with the question:

Do you believe in a god that is all powerful, all knowing, and created everything?

If we stick to wording of the question the answer’s got to be “no,” because the notions are omniscience and omnipotence are inconsistent.

We could rephrase:
Could the universe have been created by some sort of being?
Only the sort of being to whom it is appropriate to ascribe temporal actions; it dwells in a space and a time, perhaps extending the one he created.

Could everything have been created by some sort of being?
NO. Because creating requires the being lives within a temporal duration. Who created his universe? An infinite regress of gods ensues.

Okay let’s rephrase again:
Could a being outside of any space and any time be responsible for the universe in which we dwell and be responsible for everything else including itself?
Only if one can make sense of the question can it be answered. In particular the notion of responsible cannot involve actions that take place in time. But suppose we decide that beings transcendent of space and time are somehow responsible for our universe. Then we’re back to SmashysmashY’s original point: blame for the ills of our world would rest with those gods who are responsible for our world, but then those gods could not be all good. If there were just one such god, then it’s not all good.

[SmashysmashY]

Most people who? Buddhists have a very different viewpoint - that's approximately 376 million folks right there. Hindus? Add another 900 million, but then you guys already negated the concept of Pararahman by stating that

There are 2.1 billion Christians in this world and 1.3 billion Muslims. That is more than half the world’s population right there. The group of people who hold these beliefs is obviously larger than the groups that do not. That is what most means.

which, by its basic etymology is something "transcendent of time and space" - but, there you go. Obviously the Western world is the only world that matters.

So, discounting most of Asia and the Indian sub-continent, what we're talking about is a Euro-centric vision of God.

What does outside of time mean? How does something operate outside of time? You have offered no explanations at all, just because you can say something that doesn’t make it coherent.

Gee, lookie there... 3 colloquialisms before one in a "theological sense" even shows up. Funny thing is, the "theological sense" tends to occupy slot 3 or four in any dictionary I look up the word "faith" in. And gee whiz, look at the FIRST definition, that old bugaboo "truth" - and HOKEY SMOKES!! The second definition lists "trust" as a synonym. So, let's toss re-definition aside, shall we? Faith, to most English speaking persons can be equated to trust, at least, according to the folks who publish dictionaries.

Dictionaries exist to provide definitions that people might use. Would you be surprised to find out that not all of these definitions are appropriate for every context? Some theological and philosophical terms have colloquial usages and dictionaries list these definitions, sometimes along with the proper theological definitions. Dictionaries do not offer a rigorous philosophical justification for every definition listed. That is your error. Your source does not provide a philosophical justification for the definition; it is merely citing common usage. So, yes it is equivocation.

Which could be interpreted to mean that if every dog I ever saw in my life was yellow, along with every reference about dogs anyone ever made to me included the statement that "it was a yellow dog" and nowhere EVER in my experience, did I have anything ever occur that would negate my observations of yellow dogs - by that measure, I would know that all dogs are yellow? Or, would it be better to say I believed, I trusted that all dogs were yellow?

I mean, come on, it's been justified by my reality, right?

It would be trust and you wouldn’t have any way of justifying the belief that dogs were anything but yellow. Of course outside of your analogy you would be able to investigate beyond what you saw on your street or what people have said to you in passing about dogs so you could easily figure out that not all dogs are yellow. So I don’t think that analogy really drives home the point you are trying to make. But if something is completely outside of your experience and your ability to investigate the matter then the best you can say about it is “I don’t know”. You can’t just make naked assertions and expect that it will be placed on par with empirical data.

[insert_namehere]

Okay, so far we've learned the following:

1) "more" = "most"
2) Dictionaries, rather than being a standard for grammar, etymology and definition so that there can be a basis of understanding when a given word is used (i.e. "You say sex is carnal knowledge? I was nowhere NEAR her car!") in reality offer definitions people MIGHT use.
3) People don't really READ a post prior to responding to it.

What does outside of time mean? How does something operate outside of time? You have offered no explanations at all, just because you can say something that doesn't make it coherent.

Trish said "outside", I said "transcends". While I know you don't put a lot of stock in what dictionaries have to say, in pure theological terms, it would mean independent of time and space - in other words, time and space are irrelevant to its' being.

That might be a little more coherent if you took the chip off your shoulder.

So I don't think that analogy really drives home the point you are trying to make. But if something is completely outside of your experience and your ability to investigate the matter then the best you can say about it is "I don't know". You can't just make naked assertions and expect that it will be placed on par with empirical data.

It does if you read my post carefully without rushing to conclusions. My post states that without any evidence ANYWHERE that there are anything but yellow dogs, the only conclusion I can come to is that all dogs are yellow.

Living in a universe populated with nothing but yellow dogs doesn't preclude the possibility that brown dogs exist, but you wouldn't have any empirical data to back that up. According to your argument, unless there is empirical evidence, all dogs are yellow.

So, we get back to the nub. The core argument for anything is belief that the taproot from which the rest of the evidence is hung upon is the only possible reality.

Okay, let's get back to the initial query in the post, which, I can only assume was prompted by the blog entry in the ethics section of onphilosphy.wordpress.com on June 15th: http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/20...0%99s-dilemma/

It's a neat little argument positing that the existence of ethics precludes the existence of God.

It precludes the existence of a certain TYPE of God, yes - but since the whole issue of God operating within the same ethical standard as man is suspect at best, in the end, it's an argument that goes nowhere.

Before this runs further and becomes acrimonious on anyone's part - a couple of questions.

Can you agree that there is a possibility that "existence as we know it" may not, in fact BE nothing other than "existence as we know it"? In other words, is it possible that the empirical evidence of physics, such as "matter can neither be created not destroyed" is accepted only because there has been nothing to counterindicate it? We have assumptions as to what matter is, we have speculation on the issue of creation - but, supernovas observed or not, we have no proof.

Second question: Do you feel that any/all belief in some sort of Supreme Entity (call it what you will) is merely ignorant hocus pocus?

Third question: Do you feel that empiricism is the only litmus test for the "reality" of something?

Fourth question: IF you feel empiricism is the only leveler of truth... why are you indulging in what is ostensibly a philosophical debate? If you have an agenda in your initial post, why not just state it?

If my reply seems prickly, I apologise... it's just the way I write sometimes.

[SmashysmashY]

Why should I be concerned with trying to decipher the post of someone who won’t even admit that more than half is most? I don’t have a chip on my shoulder, but if you give me guff I’ll give it right back. And if you try to use an american heritage dictionary as a philosophical justification for using a term then yes I’ll say that’s fallacious. The purpose of a dictionary is to provide all the definitions for a word in the common usage, not to offer a philosophical justification.

And now you are just setting up a straw man to knock down easily. I did not say that it would preclude the possibility that brown dogs exist. I said you would have no justification for making that assertion. And what you appear to be saying is that you don’t need justification to make any claim because things exist outside of your experience. Well, let’s talk about real life then. If I claim that some dogs are 30 feet tall, purple, and have two heads, what justification do I have to make that claim? None, but you say that I can make it anyway because I haven’t looked in every volcano, and under the arctic ice sheet, or at the bottom of the Marianas trench, maybe there are 30 feet tall, purple, two-headed dogs there.

I didn’t say that no possible gods could exist. I said that this kind of god could not exist. You already concede that but then you try to argue with points I never made; but you don’t want to offer any reasoning or evidence that it does exist or that anything exists beyond what we perceive to be reality. You just want to attack empiricism to create wiggle room for making baseless assertions.

Wouldn’t you at least agree that it would be prudent to base our contentions on pre-existing facts instead of just throwing out wild claims about what might go on in some heretofore unknown and undefined realm of existence?

[insert_namehere]

Why should I be concerned with trying to decipher the post of someone who won't even admit that more than half is most? I don't have a chip on my shoulder, but if you give me guff I'll give it right back. And if you try to use an american heritage dictionary as a philosophical justification for using a term then yes I'll say that's fallacious. The purpose of a dictionary is to provide all the definitions for a word in the common usage, not to offer a philosophical justification.

I'll concede the first point of "That may be a limited definition of god to you, but suffice it to say that is the definition that most people have." in the interest of yes, 53 to 54% of the world's population (according to your posted graph) prescribe to that definition of god.

Now, in regards to dictionaries - defining a term is sort of critical to good communication, yes? "Justifying" the use of a term, when it turns contrary to the definition of a term, I'd have to question. I've never run across a philosophical Concordia that defines "the term faith MUST mean this in all philosophical discussions" or "the term belief must mean this", since, well... that would mean that all participants in the discussion would have to agree that that yes, faith = thus and belief = that. If that were the case, I could go about writing definitions to justify any argument I want. Nobody would buy into it, of course, but still.

And now you are just setting up a straw man to knock down easily. I did not say that it would preclude the possibility that brown dogs exist. I said you would have no justification for making that assertion. And what you appear to be saying is that you don't need justification to make any claim because things exist outside of your experience. Well, let's talk about real life then. If I claim that some dogs are 30 feet tall, purple, and have two heads, what justification do I have to make that claim? None, but you say that I can make it anyway because I haven't looked in every volcano, and under the arctic ice sheet, or at the bottom of the Marianas trench, maybe there are 30 feet tall, purple, two-headed dogs there.

Again, if you READ my previous post, I said:
My post states that without any evidence ANYWHERE that there are anything but yellow dogs, the only conclusion I can come to is that all dogs are yellow.

Living in a universe populated with nothing but yellow dogs doesn't preclude the possibility that brown dogs exist, but you wouldn't have any empirical data to back that up. According to your argument, unless there is empirical evidence, all dogs are yellow.

I agreed that under purely empirical rules, given the state of existence I would be in, I would have no justification for assuming that any other color dog exists.

Now, not to belabor the point, but the condition of the empirical argument is one that is based on the belief that no other alternative to "existence as we experience it" can exist. I don't understand why this is such a bone of contention. We all operate on some basis of assumption, the issue of what is "reality" being just one of many.

I didn't say that no possible gods could exist. I said that this kind of god could not exist. You already concede that but then you try to argue with points I never made; but you don't want to offer any reasoning or evidence that it does exist or that anything exists beyond what we perceive to be reality. You just want to attack empiricism to create wiggle room for making baseless assertions.

My initial post wasn't in response to you, but to a comment that ezed made. As such, indeed I was dealing with points you didn't make, since I wasn't addressing you. However, you chose to respond to my post, at which time, yes indeedy, you and I were having a dialogue.

Regarding "evidence" of God, even the definition of god you posted initially in this thread, naturally would fall apart in a strictly empirical argument, which is the reason I posted this question:

Second question: Do you feel that any/all belief in some sort of Supreme Entity (call it what you will) is merely ignorant hocus pocus?

as well as the follow up questions. Man has been struggling with observable conditions versus spiritual beliefs (at least in writing) since Plato's Republic. Interpreting measurable phenomena and trying to understand what it means (especially phenomena that can only be observed, not experienced, such as collapsing suns, black holes) is tricky. Sometimes it reinforces a belief that there is some sort of harmony to the universe, which would tend to imply oversight on SOME cosmic level, and at other times, seems chaotic (which would reinforce a belief that all is merely random happenstance). While mankind can grapple with VERY sophisticated formulas and models to shore up the conclusions they come to, history has shown us over and over again that what is TRUE at one point, turns out to be supposition at another.

Wouldn't you at least agree that it would be prudent to base our contentions on pre-existing facts instead of just throwing out wild claims about what might go on in some heretofore unknown and undefined realm of existence?

If we go only by pre-existing facts, there is no fact to indicate that god or gods of any sort exist. If you want to argue the motivation and responsibility of ONE thing whose existence in an empirical argument cannot exist, then you've let the camel's nose under the tent flap and all sorts of possibilities can be allowed in.

So, again, I'm asking you in a very warm and friendly manner, as well as being genuinely curious as to what your responses will be, please respond to the following:

Can you agree that there is a possibility that "existence as we know it" may not, in fact BE nothing other than "existence as we know it"? In other words, is it possible that the empirical evidence of physics, such as "matter can neither be created not destroyed" is accepted only because there has been nothing to counterindicate it? We have assumptions as to what matter is, we have speculation on the issue of creation - but, supernovas observed or not, we have no proof.

Second question: Do you feel that any/all belief in some sort of Supreme Entity (call it what you will) is merely ignorant hocus pocus?

Third question: Do you feel that empiricism is the only litmus test for the "reality" of something?

Fourth question: IF you feel empiricism is the only leveler of truth... why are you indulging in what is ostensibly a philosophical debate? If you have an agenda in your initial post, why not just state it?

Thanks in advance for your response.

[trish]

Lacking a general definition or universally accepted concept of god, one can never prove there are no gods. One can quite reasonably argue there are no beings having qualities X, Y and Z. In my last post I quite definitely left open that possibility that some transcendent committee of gods might be responsible for the universe in which we dwell, provided “responsible” is understood in a way that doesn’t require spatial or temporal concepts. To the extent that a god is responsible for our universe, it is also responsible for the good and the evil that goes on within it. Frankly I see nothing wrong with such gods, even though I personally see no need of them. This I think is the best answer I can give at the moment to insert_namehere’s first and second questions. (I know they’re not really addressed to me as much as to SmashysmashY, but I’m still interested in this discussion and thought I take a stab at the posed questions…I ask everyone’s indulgence).

We really do have to be careful to agree upon a universe of discourse before embarking on proofs or disproofs involving universal or existential claims. This is exactly what the yellow dog example illustrates.
If there really are no yellow dogs in the universe, then the existence of non-yellow dogs is precluded. This is because existence is a quantifier that ranges over the universe of discourse. What is not precluded is that one might imagine another universe with a black dog. One could attempt to extend the universe of discourse so as to include dogs of other colors. To do so requires that it be explained how the universe of discourse is to be extended so that we all understand what we’re talking about. To say merely that we’re going extend to contain things things that didn’t exist in the old universe does no work. To say we’re going to extend it to include dogs of other colors begs the question.
Claims that the gods are responsible for miracles that disrupt the flow of natural law in our universe are claims that (because they take place in our universe) are subject to the criticism of empirical science. If the gods remain transcendent, they remain out of the reach of that sort of attack. So to the third question I would answer YES if by reality you meant that the universe of discourse is the cosmos of empirical science. I might answer NO if you described a different universe of discourse.

To the fourth question I would respond, that certain kinds of mathematical proofs are levelers of truth which many people would say don’t require empirical claims. What I have in mind here is a claim like “The Pythagorean theorem is deducible via classical logic from the axioms and postulates of Euclidean geometry.”

[SmashysmashY]

Now, in regards to dictionaries - defining a term is sort of critical to good communication, yes? "Justifying" the use of a term, when it turns contrary to the definition of a term, I'd have to question. I've never run across a philosophical Concordia that defines "the term faith MUST mean this in all philosophical discussions" or "the term belief must mean this", since, well... that would mean that all participants in the discussion would have to agree that that yes, faith = thus and belief = that. If that were the case, I could go about writing definitions to justify any argument I want. Nobody would buy into it, of course, but still.

If you want to use a term in a theological sense then why can’t you refer to the religions texts of the religions that use the term and see how they use it? Or better yet look at how adherents of the religion use the term.

So, if someone has faith that Jesus will come back to life is that contingent upon experience? Do they believe it because they see people come back to life all the time, or they have reason to believe that it is even possible? Nobody has ever come back to from the dead in all of recorded history. It obviously is not contingent upon experience. In fact the belief is held in spite of past experience.

But if I have faith that if I step off the ledge of a building I will fall and my bones will be smashed when I hit the pavement I am relying on nothing to hold that belief other than observation. You could call that faith if you wanted to but it would clearly not be the same kind of faith. It would be contingent upon something while in contrast religious faith does not seek that kind of justification.

You said that it is the same thing and I don’t agree.

Now, not to belabor the point, but the condition of the empirical argument is one that is based on the belief that no other alternative to "existence as we experience it" can exist. I don't understand why this is such a bone of contention. We all operate on some basis of assumption, the issue of what is "reality" being just one of many.

The reason I started arguing with you in the first place is because you are conflating that belief which is contingent upon observation, with god belief which is not. Not all assumptions are equal. My assumption that I will win the lottery tomorrow is not equal to my assumption that I will go to work tomorrow. One of them has an astronomically high chance of not being accurate and the other is almost certainly accurate.

Can you agree that there is a possibility that "existence as we know it" may not, in fact BE nothing other than "existence as we know it"? In other words, is it possible that the empirical evidence of physics, such as "matter can neither be created not destroyed" is accepted only because there has been nothing to counterindicate it? We have assumptions as to what matter is, we have speculation on the issue of creation - but, supernovas observed or not, we have no proof.

I was not trying to avoid this question I was just not sure exactly what it meant. If you mean that there are things about how the universe operates that people don’t know then clearly that’s true because there is no unifying theory. But that doesn’t mean there is a reason to believe that the information we are not privy to yet will completely overturn everything we know about the physical laws that govern the universe. That would still be no reason to think that actions don’t have to occur in time for example.

I don’t know what every god belief is so I can’t say they are all ignorant. Maybe some are completely reasonable.

What would you replace empiricism with I wonder.

So far as the fourth question goes if you claim that something exists then you are making a claim about the observable physical world and anyone has the right to challenge you. I believe it was Richard Dawkins that said:

“If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so.”

[qeuqheeg222]

me step mom was zoroaster..has anybody here read this christopher hitchens book about god?i'm kinda curious...

[guyone]

More communist propaganda...

[LG]

More communist propaganda...

Seeing as this is the "Politics and Religion forum" I think people are entitled to give their views and opinions not only on political issues but also on religion. I don't see how any of this can be viewed as communist propaganda, but if you don't like it, just don't pay attention to it.

We should all be free to express ourselves without being branded as communists or pigeonholed into one or another category. That is the very idea of free speech, an ideal you say you support. And free speech is the very thing that drives not only this particular forum but- even more so- this whole website, seeing as it is a website on transsexuals. You do know what transsexuals are, right? Or did you just stumble upon this forum and not look into the General discussion? I suggest you have a look. For one thing, there are some very pretty girls there (yes, it's true, some of them have dicks, but you'll get used to that). For another, it will mean less time spent in the Politics discussion which will be good for all of us.

Just a friendly suggestion