27-12-2003 09:48									#31
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

blah blah blah...

	27-12-2003 09:48									#32
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Well in the dictionary I just looked up it defines God as 'the creator and ruler of the universe'. This would suggest that God is not the actual universe.

Anyway, if God is defined as the universe then yes as we all should be undoubtfully aware the universe does exist and as such God should exist. Considering I wouldn't use this definition, I'm agnostic as there is no way to prove that a God exists or not. No way at all.

I do have a theory though. Once upon a time God did exist but God sacrificed himself to start the universe and all existence, i.e God was everything but then the big bang (God sacrificing himself) happened and thus started off all existence. Nice theory eh, now prove it wrong.

Oh skywalker is right. If God is not a part of the set of the universe that contains everything then God cannot exist. Becaues if the universe contains everything then it is illogical for something to not be apart of everything.

	27-12-2003 09:48									#33
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Nice theory eh, now prove it wrong

	27-12-2003 09:49									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon No, because by hypothesis God transcends the universe. Therefore he is not subject to its laws. Saying that elves exist within the universe requires that they exist in accordance with scientific laws.

Wait.

Why must them elves obey scientific laws? They could also transcend this universe, but could only be found on the surface of electrons.

	27-12-2003 09:51									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by korn469 how can you understand something that doesn't exist besides understanding that it doesn't exist?

You can understand concepts that have no concrete existance.
As soon as you formulate the phrase "It doesn't exist" you've invented a concept (whatever 'it' referrs to) which you can understand.

If God were the Universe... I can be as sure of the Universe existing about as much as I am sure that I exist - no absolute proof in either sense.

But on a purely practical level I believe in the Cosmos (and its Kosmos) so I'd say that if Universe == God then I'll act like I believe it.

I don't believe in the Torah god (as an exact description) under any circumstances. Though there may be invisible forces.

	27-12-2003 09:51									#36
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Flip McWho Well in the dictionary I just looked up it defines God as 'the creator and ruler of the universe'. This would suggest that God is not the actual universe. Anyway, if God is defined as the universe then yes as we all should be undoubtfully aware the universe does exist and as such God should exist. Considering I wouldn't use this definition, I'm agnostic as there is no way to prove that a God exists or not. No way at all. I do have a theory though. Once upon a time God did exist but God sacrificed himself to start the universe and all existence, i.e God was everything but then the big bang (God sacrificing himself) happened and thus started off all existence. Nice theory eh, now prove it wrong. Oh skywalker is right. If God is not a part of the set of the universe that contains everything then God cannot exist. Becaues if the universe contains everything then it is illogical for something to not be apart of everything.

You know, people who argue from dictionary definitions usually fail their first year philosophy essays. It's a totally sophistical way to argue since you are begging the question against the theist.

	27-12-2003 09:53									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Wait. Why must them elves obey scientific laws? They could also transcend this universe, but could only be found on the surface of electrons.

Nice troll...

That's basically a contradiction. Electrons and their surfaces are part of the physical universe, therefore it is not only physically impossible, but logically impossible for them to transcend it.

	27-12-2003 09:54									#38
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

What does sophistical mean? Is it a reference to the Sophists in Greece? What did they believe again? (all I know about the history of philosophy I got from Sophie's World )

	27-12-2003 09:55									#39
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Actually, in the absence of evidence, the negative would generally be held to be correct (hey, we don't know there aren't any elves living on the surface of electrons, so we can't tell you they aren't ).

It's called Occam's razor. Make the theory as simple as possible so long as it all works.
Yes it's a fudge but it's a practical fudge; The human brain lacks the computational power to consider every possible opportunity.

	27-12-2003 09:56									#40
	Re: If God is the Universe - are you still an Athiest? Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Another thread discussing philosophy and the universe got me thinking about how one could be an atheist and deny the existence of God, when we do not precisely know who or what God is.

Firstly, atheists do not necessarily deny the existence of god(s). They merely deny that there is any good reason to believe in one. Secondly, using "God" customarily denotes the big Y, or the god of Judeo-Christianity, who is pretty well defined according to orthodox Christian doctrines. Third, isn't it more ironic that theists believe in something they don't know who or what if such is the case?

quote: Originally posted by Ned If we define God as the Universe (as the Universe did create the heavens and the Earth and all the rest) could you still be an atheist?

You can't simply keep redefining words or moving goal posts. What if we define humans having 3 eyes and 6 legs?

quote: Originally posted by Ned So, the very statement that one is an antheist presumes an understanding of who or what God is, which may, of course, be wrong.

Not necessarily. Atheism merely is an outgrowth of naturalism and materialism, which states that there's nothing outside this universe and there's nothing supernatural.

quote: Originally posted by Ned Athiests, please explain your understanding of God.

I understand "God" as the orthodox Judeo-Christianity deity.

	27-12-2003 09:58									#41
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Nice troll... That's basically a contradiction. Electrons and their surfaces are part of the physical universe, therefore it is not only physically impossible, but logically impossible for them to transcend it.

Not necessarily. Maybe there's no way for us to detect them otherwise? Or they simply has a preference to gather around the surface of electrons?

[Yes, it's so simple when you can completely ignore logic and laws of physics ]

	27-12-2003 09:59									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Not necessarily. Atheism merely is an outgrowth of naturalism and materialism, which states that there's nothing outside this universe and there's nothing supernatural.

Isn't the term "supernatural" somewhat self-defeating?

	27-12-2003 10:00									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Enigma_Nova You can understand concepts that have no concrete existance. As soon as you formulate the phrase "It doesn't exist" you've invented a concept (whatever 'it' referrs to) which you can understand. If God were the Universe... I can be as sure of the Universe existing about as much as I am sure that I exist - no absolute proof in either sense. But on a purely practical level I believe in the Cosmos (and its Kosmos) so I'd say that if Universe == God then I'll act like I believe it. I don't believe in the Torah god (as an exact description) under any circumstances. Though there may be invisible forces.

Oh no, you have struck the old problem of non-being - around this gather confusions upon confusions, for as father Parmenides said:

quote: Come now, I shall tell you, heed my story, hearing, Which paths of inquiry there are alone for thinking; The one: that that it is and that it cannot not be, Is the path of persuasion (for it follows truth The other: that it is not and must not be, I indicate to you to be a path utterly unlearnable; For you may neither know what is not (for that is impossible) Nor could you point [it] out.

I translated that from the Greek myself for my students.

[shameless plug] here's the whole thing[/shameless plug]

	27-12-2003 10:01									#44
	Suffering from ads?

quote: You know, people who argue from dictionary definitions usually fail their first year philosophy essays.

Ha I actually passed all my first year philosophy essays. Did reasonably well to. So there goes that one. Though you did say usually. Anyway I don't argue from the dictionary. In philosophy lectures we were given the typical christian definition of a omniprescent, omnipotent (sp? for both of those) and a third property which I cannot recall. Thats the definition I usually use.

skywalker, from the very same dictionary sophistically is a derivative from sophist which means: A person who uses clever but fallacious arguements. I think that would be the meaning that he means.

	27-12-2003 10:04									#45
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Not necessarily. Maybe there's no way for us to detect them otherwise? Or they simply has a preference to gather around the surface of electrons?

That's not the argument. His argument is that they are elves, but given everything we know about the world (such as what sorts of things minds are) we have good reason not to believe in elves around electrons, just as we have good reason to believe pigs can't fly or that telepathy works. These things don't cohere with our scientific thinking - that is itself a reason to reject them. Of course we may not know enough about the physical universe, but that is different from knowing nothing.

About transcendent entities, we have no reasons either way.

quote: Yes, it's so simple when you can completely ignore logic and laws of physics ]

I don't think theists ignore the former.

	27-12-2003 10:05									#46
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by skywalker quote: No, because by hypothesis God transcends the universe. Therefore he is not subject to its laws. Wait - how does he "transcend" the universe? As I stated before, the universe is the set of all that exists. Therefore, if god is not an element in that set, he does not exist.

I use a different set of definitions, because in your set "Existence" and "The Universe" appear to have the same meaning.

I think of 'The Universe' as a bubble of spacetime containing physical things.
I think of 'Existence' as also containg Concepts, processes and interactions between the stuff in the universe
It is possible to have something outside existence, but it would be unable to affect us.

I am unsure whether Consciousness (or God) is a part of existence.

	27-12-2003 10:06									#47
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Flip McWho Ha I actually passed all my first year philosophy essays. Did reasonably well to. So there goes that one. Though you did say usually. Anyway I don't argue from the dictionary. In philosophy lectures we were given the typical christian definition of a omniprescent, omnipotent (sp? for both of those) and a third property which I cannot recall. Thats the definition I usually use. skywalker, from the very same dictionary sophistically is a derivative from sophist which means: A person who uses clever but fallacious arguements. I think that would be the meaning that he means.

It's OK to use your opponent's own definition. It's not OK to argue against them from a dictionary definition that they may not agree with.

If someone asked me to say what "knowledge" was, and I copied it from a dictionary, I would be laughed out of class.

	27-12-2003 10:07									#48
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Enigma_Nova I use a different set of definitions, because in your set "Existence" and "The Universe" appear to have the same meaning. I think of 'The Universe' as a bubble of spacetime containing physical things. I think of 'Existence' as also containg Concepts, processes and interactions between the stuff in the universe It is possible to have something outside existence, but it would be unable to affect us. I am unsure whether Consciousness (or God) is a part of existence.

The eliminativists would have a field day with you.

	27-12-2003 10:17									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon It's OK to use your opponent's own definition. It's not OK to argue against them from a dictionary definition that they may not agree with. If someone asked me to say what "knowledge" was, and I copied it from a dictionary, I would be laughed out of class.

I agree arguing against a person based on a definition that they aren't using is pointless. However, if they are fallaciously mixing two definitions, then it becomes a problem and arguing the definition is important. It is also important if they never do define their terms.

	27-12-2003 10:19									#50
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by skywalker I agree arguing against a person based on a definition that they aren't using is pointless. However, if they are fallaciously mixing two definitions, then it becomes a problem and arguing the definition is important. It is also important if they never do define their terms.

But they do. Most of them along the lines of Enigma Nova.

As I said, let's be fair.

	27-12-2003 10:50									#51
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: As I said, let's be fair.

I agree. It is better to refute somebodies argument using their definition. It's like winning the battle on their terms.

quote: eliminativists

huh? Who/What are they?

	27-12-2003 10:54									#52
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Flip McWho huh? Who/What are they?

People like Paul Churchland. They don't believe that there are such things as concepts, mental states, beliefs, etc. They think these are "folk psychological" entities which should be rejected in favour of neuroscience.

	27-12-2003 10:55									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ahhhhhhh ta. A little bit clearer now than before.

	27-12-2003 11:19									#54
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Agathon People like Paul Churchland. They don't believe that there are such things as concepts, mental states, beliefs, etc. They think these are "folk psychological" entities which should be rejected in favour of neuroscience.

First, I know I have the concepts - I'm self-aware, and aware of these thoughts and beliefs. Second, why can't they be both, or one and the same - concepts and neurological states? In fact, it would seem to be the necessary conclusion.

	27-12-2003 12:17									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Is there a point to this thread?

If one defines God as "that piece of cake I ate earlier", then I believe in God.

If one defines God as an omniscient, omnipotent consciousness then I don't.

	27-12-2003 12:27									#56
	Inflate your Upload Space

"Is there a point to this thread?"

Does there have to be? I mean were arguing about Gods existence over a definition. Never gonna get anywhere. Well thats what it started off as. Yeah defintiion can be a grey area in arguments like this as it depends entirely on what your definition of something critical to your argument is.

	27-12-2003 12:28									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

You ****ing Kiwis are all the same.

	27-12-2003 13:07									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse You ****ing Kiwis are all the same.

correction:

You sheep ****ing Kiwis are all the same.

	27-12-2003 13:14									#59
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

That's redundant.

	27-12-2003 13:17									#60
	Put an end to popups!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha