Oh my, how religious of you, Jim!! What a zealot! I can see how you want to kill Christians and/or lock them up in gulags. You're a marxist too, so it makes perfect sense..JimC wrote: As I've said before, even if it is not wise to assert with dogmatic certainty that there is no god, in the absence of evidence for a god, it is perfectly reasonable to live on the operating assumption that no supernatural being exists.
Nothing I've noticed, rEv...rEvolutionist wrote:... software is borked. Anyone else having strange things go on when you try and edit a post, and also when you submit a post and someone else has made an intervening post in the meantime?...
And he did it only to you, rEv...rEvolutionist wrote:Goddidit!
You've certainly got a talent for the simple.Seth wrote:It's a logical truth. It needs no test because if and when it comes to pass, whomever attains that perfection of knowledge will necessarily know that the knowledge he, she or it has is perfect. If there is any ambiguity, then the knowledge is not perfect.Hermit wrote:Fark! Last week Seth approved of something I said and now I fully agree with his post. The sky is falling!Seth wrote:Answer...eliminate...same thing. A distinction without a difference.piscator wrote:P1 Perfect knowledge eliminates all questions.
P2 "Does God exist" is a question.
C1 Perfect knowledge will answer eliminate the question "Does God exist."
OK, that may be a massive overreaction. Seth, you have ignored the question of how we can be certain of having reached perfect knowledge several times now. Is there a scientific test for this, or is it just a gut feeling?
How much simpler can I possibly make it?
Pseudo-mystical crap, worthy of the most brainless of the new-age neo-hippie brigade...Seth wrote:
...whomever attains that perfection of knowledge will necessarily know that the knowledge he, she or it has is perfect. ...
No I don't. I said "when man's knowledge of the universe is perfect, then he will know whether or not God exists." It's a conditional statement, not a prediction of man's future intellectual progress.JimC wrote:And yet you go much further. You assert that, at some time in the future (with the illusory chimera of "perfect knowledge") that humans will be able to make that call for certain.Seth wrote:
it's purely rational to conclude, based on all the pertinent evidence known to man, that it is impossible to conclude that God exists or does not exist at this stage of human knowledge. Therefore the only rational answer to the question "Does God exist?" must be "I don't know."
Why do you give a flying fuck what they believe or say? If they try to punish you for apostasy, just draw your pistol and shoot them dead. Oh, wait...you don't HAVE a pistol...never mind, you get to enjoy the Inquisition.And even if we accept, for the moment, that in terms of pure logic, "I don't know" is the best call we can make, we are confronted by hordes of angry theists who assert, often violently, that unless you agree with them that their particular god exists, you are evil, and should be punished.
You seem to forget Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, who alone are responsible for about 100 million dead people, many of them of various religious persuasions that Communism tried to wipe out. There are many more Marxists like them who have done the same thing and who want to do the same thing, and I suspect a few of them infest this place and RatSkep.In comparison, stubborn atheists who assert that there is definitely no god may be sarcastic towards theists, but I've yet to see an atheist jihad against the faithful.
Of course it is. I never claimed anything different. All I'm saying is that any statement in response to a theistic claim other than "I don't know" is logically and rationally flawed and demonstrates a deeper bias and hatred of theism than most Atheists care to admit, which makes them gross hypocrites as well as religious zealots.As I've said before, even if it is not wise to assert with dogmatic certainty that there is no god, in the absence of evidence for a god, it is perfectly reasonable to live on the operating assumption that no supernatural being exists.
And yet you still seem to be entirely incapable of comprehending it.mistermack wrote:You've certainly got a talent for the simple.Seth wrote:It's a logical truth. It needs no test because if and when it comes to pass, whomever attains that perfection of knowledge will necessarily know that the knowledge he, she or it has is perfect. If there is any ambiguity, then the knowledge is not perfect.Hermit wrote:Fark! Last week Seth approved of something I said and now I fully agree with his post. The sky is falling!Seth wrote:Answer...eliminate...same thing. A distinction without a difference.piscator wrote:P1 Perfect knowledge eliminates all questions.
P2 "Does God exist" is a question.
C1 Perfect knowledge will answer eliminate the question "Does God exist."
OK, that may be a massive overreaction. Seth, you have ignored the question of how we can be certain of having reached perfect knowledge several times now. Is there a scientific test for this, or is it just a gut feeling?
How much simpler can I possibly make it?
Like virtually all the so-called logical arguments in syllogism form, you assume the answer in your premise. When you say, ''all questions'' you have of course included the god question. Otherwise, it's not ALL questions.
So all you establish, is that someone who knows the answer to the god question, knows the answer to the god question.
You certainly did make it simple. Award yourself a lollipop, Socrates.
If so, the question is, firstly, whether it is simply a creator being with no personal connection to the sapient beings within its creation.Seth wrote:
Then again, if God is not a "supernatural being" and is in fact an entirely natural being that you just don't comprehend, your entire Atheist platform is resting on a slender reed planted in a foundation of shifting sand.
Nothing in logic says god has to be a nice guy. I believe historically most gods are nasty, jealous, vindictive and cruel. That's usually why people worship them, to curry favor and avoid the gods wrath.JimC wrote:If so, the question is, firstly, whether it is simply a creator being with no personal connection to the sapient beings within its creation.Seth wrote:
Then again, if God is not a "supernatural being" and is in fact an entirely natural being that you just don't comprehend, your entire Atheist platform is resting on a slender reed planted in a foundation of shifting sand.
If it has a personal connection, as alleged by most monotheistic religions, which version is correct? Is it Allah, is it the Jewish master of the universe, or is it the catholic version?
Whichever version of the monotheistic god you pick, Seth, be aware that He is, from all written accounts, a fascist monster that demands his people to be the ultimate sheeples.
I think you should lead a libertarian anti-theist campaign against the ultimate threat to human freedom...
Obviously god isnt the ultimate threat to freedom, but as I've mentioned before if Seth's comrades every find out he is an atheist (sorry non-theist tolerist - not trade marked as there is already a book on tolerism which definitely isnt libertarian) they will disown him.I think you should lead a libertarian anti-theist campaign against the ultimate threat to human freedom...
Seth wrote:That's usually why people worship them, to curry favor and avoid the gods wrath.
So, you are clearly prepared to be an arse-licker if it will save you from the wrath of god...Seth wrote:Nothing in logic says god has to be a nice guy. I believe historically most gods are nasty, jealous, vindictive and cruel. That's usually why people worship them, to curry favor and avoid the gods wrath.JimC wrote:If so, the question is, firstly, whether it is simply a creator being with no personal connection to the sapient beings within its creation.Seth wrote:
Then again, if God is not a "supernatural being" and is in fact an entirely natural being that you just don't comprehend, your entire Atheist platform is resting on a slender reed planted in a foundation of shifting sand.
If it has a personal connection, as alleged by most monotheistic religions, which version is correct? Is it Allah, is it the Jewish master of the universe, or is it the catholic version?
Whichever version of the monotheistic god you pick, Seth, be aware that He is, from all written accounts, a fascist monster that demands his people to be the ultimate sheeples.
I think you should lead a libertarian anti-theist campaign against the ultimate threat to human freedom...
I'm not saying that the existence of god is unalloyed good, just that it's not rational to claim that god does not exist.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests