You know what Castiel, I'm going to give you the benefit of he doubt and presume I'm missing your point because I'm half ****ed
, you normally make so much sense and I'm not seeing it here, I'll put it down to me tonight..Atheists unite
- Thread starter anything I don't mind
- Start date
You know what Castiel, I'm going to give you the benefit of he doubt and presume I'm missing your point because I'm half ****ed
, you normally make so much sense and I'm not seeing it here, I'll put it down to me tonight..
You know what Castiel, I'm going to give you the benefit of he doubt and presume I'm missing your point because I'm half ****ed
The simplest way I can express it is, it is easy to demonstrate a Tiger in all probability exists because it is very narrowly defined. It is easy to demonstrate Santa Claus doesn't in all probability exist because it is again, very narrowly defined. The more narrowly defined the subject is, the easier it is to determine the truth value of that subject.
Unfortunately The Concept of God has no such strict or narrow definition, so it is more difficult to determine the objective truth of the subject. So it is easier to dismiss objectively something as narrowly defined as a Unicorn than something as nebulous as God.
I agree.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You know what Castiel, I'm going to give you the benefit of he doubt and presume I'm missing your point because I'm half ****ed
Nope, he's making very little sense.
It's a usual tactic of his. Write a verbose and often tautologous dictum designed to discombobulate, so when a bewildered response is retorted he can claim cerebral victory by speciously implying his antagonists are too intellectually subordinate to debate with him.
But as I've just shown, anyone can do that
Strange, others seem to understand it easily enough.
I don't think so.
well yeah that's fine, as an undefined concept it simply becomes irrelevant
but when people start making claims, giving a concept of 'God' some attributes - claiming 'God' performed some action or that some book/words came from 'God' then that can be dismissed in the same way that claims of seeing a 'Ghost' can
Hence the argument being that the question "Does God Exist" is inherently meaningless.
That would depend upon the action/attribute/words and how they are interpreted, expressed and defined. In any case, you would be dismissing the action/attribute or the specificity attributed to the concept, rather than the concept itself....again a point I already made.
The point I'm making is, individual gods have been defined. So while "Does God exist" may be obselete, "Does the Judeo-Christian God exist" or "Does Odin exist" are not, as these have been described and defined in sufficient detail to be discarded as unlikely.
Going back to the Santa example, would it make him harder to disprove if he was not as well defined? Say his clothes and build were unknown, and he supposedly only visited a few children in one town? I suppose yes. In the same way that if a person was a deist and believes a god only created and didn't continue to intervene, it would be harder to logically disprove, as we suddenly have an explanation for suffering compatible with a god (in my mind current ones are not). This god is not defined other than as a creator; other characteristics are unknown. God may be apathetic, or even actively dislike his creation. Perhaps ignorance. The characteristics of a all knowing, powerful, and loving god no longer make suffering seem illogical.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Horse Manure.
The Santa Clause myth is not globally narrowly defined. For a start he is called various different names, Santa Claus, Father Christmas, St. Nicholas and Kris Kringle. In France, he is called Papa Noel and rides a donkey called 'Gui'. Italy have 'Le Bafana' who is more of a witch-like character and a woman. In Iceland they have the 'Yulemen', 13 mischievous dwarves who vary from gift-givers to kidnappers. Scandinavia have the 'Tomte' who are generally kind gnomish people that attack people who weren't good stewards of farmland. Russians tell their children about Ded Moroz, a traditional Santa looking fellow who has a horse driven sledge instead of a reindeer powered one, and 'Sinterklaas' is the Dutch version of Father Christmas who most resembles the popularised American version but instead comes from to the Netherlands in late November from Spain.
So no, the concept of a Christmas dwelling character isn't narrowly defined and has many different interpretations. If anything, I'd argue that you'd get a more aligned definition of 'God' if you traveled the world conducting a poll than you would with Santa.
well given the concept in the most abstract sense is irrelevant you'll find that most attacks/dismissals of 'God' are related to less abstract instances of God/Gods - the concept being dismissed often does have attributes
so yes while a general concept of God is undefined/irrelevant that isn't often what people are attacking
Irrespective of the various names derived therein, the concept of Santa Claus and its cultural derivatives is narrowly defined, it also has a historicity that can be tracked to a large degree and we can determine the truth value using such, as all of the examples you have chosen illustrate...each is narrowly defined and a truth value can be determined for each one or even collectively....the Concept of God is far more complex and nebulous, some definitions are narrow and can be dismissed quite easily, others can not, some do not have any defined attributes from which to determine a nature to judge in the first place.
So believe it is horse manure if you so wish, that is up to you. I do to agree with you nonetheless and you will not persuade me if 'horse manure' is the extent of your argument.
Last edited:
Can you define, objectively, the Judeo-Christian God? What are its defining attributes, what is its defining nature?
The point is that, as you demonstrate, being able to demonstrate a truth value for a specific, defined example of a concept when the concept itself has no universal definition doesn't demonstrate a truth value for the concept itself.
What people are often implying, or even stating is that there are no such things as Deities, atheism in the narrow sense is predicated by this. It dismisses the abstract by dismissing any and all definitions therein. In any case, dismissing attributes, or definitions of a concept based upon those attributes still doesn't dismiss the concept itself...this is the point, when you compare the argument for the existence of a Unicorn to the existence of God, you are comparing a narrowly defined subject verses a very broadly defined subject, therefore the ability to objectively judge the truth value of each is not equal.
Last edited:
Good. Just watched a few of the videos from the guy and whilst he presents them in a pretty sound way, he has a very "us vs them" style, which definitely isn't educational content in my book.
All knowing, loving, powerful. To me, that's how the Judeo-Christian god has been described time and time again by Jews and Christians. For me, it therefore must surely not exist because these three characteristics of the god would ensure that it is a perfect world. It isn't. People die of horrific diseases, animals are tortured, millions die in bloody wars, drought, famine, the list goes on.
Agreed. But no-one has this undefined conceptual god. They either follow an organised religion or have their own personal definition of god. And most of these can be rejected.
I think a couple of you have really missed the point on this Santa example.
Santa himself is, I think I can fairly say, a magical figure that would exist within our reality. A god on the other hand can exist outside the boundaries of known reality, can transcend space and time, purportedly the creator of all existence, and the existence before existence, existing itself outside of the everything and the nothing. It makes complete sense to me that it easier to dismiss the existence of the former rather than the latter. That is not saying that both are not equally impossible to prove for or against!
Santa himself is, I think I can fairly say, a magical figure that would exist within our reality. A god on the other hand can exist outside the boundaries of known reality, can transcend space and time, purportedly the creator of all existence, and the existence before existence, existing itself outside of the everything and the nothing. It makes complete sense to me that it easier to dismiss the existence of the former rather than the latter. That is not saying that both are not equally impossible to prove for or against!
Maybe you're misinterpreting what people are often implying then? Even militant athiest types don't tend to IME - Richard Dawkins doesn't dismiss abstract notions of 'God' for example.
Indeed.