Alluring, isnt it?

[Sarkus]

I agree from a certain pragmatic POV that they are equivalent. However that does not enable one to make the leap to "I can be certain these things do not exist." You might say "since I cannot interact with them it is as if they don't exist" which I cannot argue with. But again, supposing that very strong theoretical reasons for a multiverse become apparent. That would put the status of other universes somewhere in a nebulous region between "knowable" and "absolute fantasy". But it would be unjustified to say "I'm certain they do not exist."

It's not just a pragmatic POV - it's the logical POV.
While the existence of whatever it is that is unknowable could be logically possible, because of their unknowable nature they are logically equivalent in every respect to something that doesn't exist.

But please don't think that I'm saying "I can thus be certain these things do not exist". I can not say that as I have no evidence of their non-existence.
Which is also why I am a "weak" atheist.

Multiple universes are theoretically possible, as far as I know, although I am not well read in that area. But until their existence becomes "knowable" in any way, no matter how theoretically possible they are, they are logically equivalent to anything else that doesn't exist.

But it could be theoretically possible that our Universe sits on the back of a giant turtle.
Some of these unknowables are certainly more palatable, but if neither are "knowable" then they are surely equal in their "existence".

(btw - I'm fairly sure we're not actually arguing here and are merely discussing different elements of the same understanding - but hey ho! )

 

[Lerxst]

It's not just a pragmatic POV - it's the logical POV.
While the existence of whatever it is that is unknowable could be logically possible, because of their unknowable nature they are logically equivalent in every respect to something that doesn't exist.

But please don't think that I'm saying "I can thus be certain these things do not exist". I can not say that as I have no evidence of their non-existence.
Which is also why I am a "weak" atheist.

Multiple universes are theoretically possible, as far as I know, although I am not well read in that area. But until their existence becomes "knowable" in any way, no matter how theoretically possible they are, they are logically equivalent to anything else that doesn't exist.

But it could be theoretically possible that our Universe sits on the back of a giant turtle.
Some of these unknowables are certainly more palatable, but if neither are "knowable" then they are surely equal in their "existence".

(btw - I'm fairly sure we're not actually arguing here and are merely discussing different elements of the same understanding - but hey ho! )

Maybe we have different things in mind when we say "theoretical." I would not call the gaint turtle idea "theoretical" at all. I'd call that a rather fanciful speculation.

Here is another example: the Higgs boson. There are theoretical reasons to think it exists, but there is no conclusive evidence - yet. This is really due to a current technological limitiation, which IIRC, will be overcome in another year or so. But for the sake of argument, suppose we were nowhere near building the collider we needed and that it was doubtful we ever would - suppose terrorists kept blowing it up, for example, and a new flu wipes out 99% of the population, and we revert to being more or less primitive again. I still don't think that the Higgs boson would belong in the same category as the 'universe on a turtle' idea. That is why I say there are different degrees of 'unknown'...

Are we really arguing... yes and no. On the scale of all religious belief, you and I are going to be brothers in arms - neither of us believes in god(s) and we both condemn the general ill effects of organized religion on our race and we both are advocates for science and reason. But I think this subtlety we are arguing over is exactly that which makes you a weak atheist and makes me an agnostic.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting dialogue, Sarkus.

 

[Godless]

No I cannot. But I believe that a God is there. God is a concept, as I've pointed out, removed from any other.

God is a concept brought about from ignorance.

The concept cannot be compaired to that of an invisible pink unicorn, for reasons I've pointed out.

Can't you relate, "it's invisible yet pink" How would anyone know of it's exists or not and know it's pink when it's invisible? I'ts a mocking toward your god, you claim that it exists, yet you define god as "incomprehensible". If it's incomprehensible, then how can anyone claim that it exist or not?

We, as humans, are presented with an idea that by nature we can never have hope of understanding - that is, eternal.

We know what "eternal" means, though we can't fathom what eternal feels like, one simple word. is Forever.

The concept of eternal is never beginning, never ending - no time. We exist within time, so I hope you can understand why we cannot comprehend it.

I just explained above. Eternal is forever. Though our minds can't contemplate what forever feels like, cause we don't exist forever, nor does anything else that is known to us, exist forever. Even gods!.

If humans had no consciousness, the concept of god, would be non-existent. If humans suddenly aquired consciousness, like 3000 years ago, then sudenly question arise, that can't be answered, thus gods "our own consciousness voices" became our gods, quiding us, and in time these voices became silent as our consciousness evolved, to perceive reality as is, and not as we "wish it were". Ever heard of Dr. Julian Jaynes? In "The Break Down of the Bicameral Mind".

The only idea that we as humans can conjure up as "always being," logically, is something we can never have hope of understanding because it exists outside of time

Do you even know the origin of such a concept as "outside of time"?

There's no such BS, time exists, nothing escapes it, at least in this universe, It is not created, nor can it be destroyed. Time is only in your mind. If you were not conscious of your own enviorenment, and existed in a black box, time would be non-existent to you. However your physical body would decay because of time, but your mind would be unaware of time passing. (Outside of time) was a concept thought out by Augustine of Hippo who wrote:"that time exists only within the created universe, so that God exists outside of time; for God there is no past or future, but only an eternal present".

Very famous apolegetic really. But I don't buy the BS, because there's NO EVIDENCE! for such a concept to exist.

Eternal...the elusive concept that we can only graze with our human minds...never beginning, never ending....something must be there, that something exists outside our our comprehension...it is not physical, it is not something we can ever understand, and we humans are aware of it...and we are somehow a result of whatever "it" is, as we lie within whatever "it" is.

True! then why buy the BS, that one who worships an "incomprehinsible invisible deity" will exist in another realm, eternally in bliss?. It's Bull shit, only meant to manipulate the ignorance of the masses. Thus when people got "enlightened" it really meant EDUCATED!.

You have either two concepts that human beings can fathom as being eternal. God, or nothing.

Wrong, you only really have one choice. And that is Nothing!. If you create another being, such as god, with no explanation of what it is, but that it is incomprehesible, and we are suppose to follow those whom seem to be enlightened by it's wisdom, then you create more problems. How is one suppose to "know" that these so called leaders are "wise" of god, when It is INCOMPREHENSIBLE?

Godless

 

[Capo Crimini]

But see thats the amazing and scary thing about religion: It can and will never be disproven or proven. Its completely, totaly, and utterly subjective. Its like.... Art.

Nice metaphore!

 

[Zappa]

Sarkus:

Firstly, apologies for misreading the AS for IS.

However, you claim that God is Eternal, seemingly on the sole basis that "something has to be".

There is, however, no evidence for this.
Why does something have to be eternal?

Could you explain how you could possibly imagine NOT eternal?

You also claim that this (its eternal nature) is the only thing that you can claim about God.

So where is the evidence that God created us? Surely that would be another claim?

The claim is that we are the result of this eternal entity. Because time has to have a beginning(the beginning of cause and effect; the first cause) it would lead one to believe that there was a reason for the cause. We are a result of the first cause, and thus a result of the reason for the cause. The reason is not time-oriented; I have already explained this. The only thing we can possibly imagine lacking in time is 'eternal.' Thus we are the result of eternal.

If not, if all you are claiming is that GOD is Eternal and that you know/can know nothing else about GOD, then what is it that you are worshipping, if indeed you are religious?
I happily accept that there are unknowable things - such as anything outside our Universe. But I do not worship this unknowable thing as anything that is unknowable is logically equivalent to something that does not exist.If you claim it is beyond comprehension - then it is unknowable and thus logically equivalent to something that does not exist - i.e. irrelevant.

But that's the point;(unless you can somehow explain this away ) we KNOW that eternal exists. And the reason for our existence is somehow tied to it. That's the basic human desire - to know why and how we exist. You are left with only TWO choices you as a human can imagine as being eternal: A supernatural entity, or nothing.

So why claim/believe it exists?

Why not? I follow logic. When logic tells me there are only two choices that are concievable by any human being, I'll go with the most plausible.

And why call it God?

Gotta call it something.

 

[Sarkus]

Could you explain how you could possibly imagine NOT eternal.

The claim is that we are the result of this eternal entity. Because time has to have a beginning(the beginning of cause and effect; the first cause) it would lead one to believe that there was a reason for the cause. We are a result of the first cause, and thus a result of the reason for the cause. The reason is not time-oriented; I have already explained this. The only thing we can possibly imagine lacking in time is 'eternal.' Thus we are the result of eternal.

Ok - my understanding and usage of the word "eternal" is different to yours - in that I see anything as "eternal" as existing throughout time.
Since I see eternal as a function of time (i.e. from 0 to infinity) then to say something is not a function of time to me would not make it eternal, but something else - i.e. something unconceptualisable.

But that's the point;(unless you can somehow explain this away ) we KNOW that eternal exists.

Really? How do we know?

And the reason for our existence is somehow tied to it. That's the basic human desire - to know why and how we exist. You are left with only TWO choices you as a human can imagine as being eternal: A supernatural entity, or nothing.

No - you are left with one option: whatever is outside our Universe is utterly unknowable - we can make NO assumptions nor logical conclusions about what is outside our Universe.

To be "supernatural" suggests that there are interractions within our universe that go beyond the natural. So I certainly wouldn't use that word, even though I don't think you mean it that way either.

And anything that is outside our universe - well, we have no idea, and can have no idea, what is "natural" in that realm. But since we can not know - why does it matter?

Why not? I follow logic. When logic tells me there are only two choices that are concievable by any human being, I'll go with the most plausible.

Logic would suggest that there is an inside and an outside to the Universe we are in. Anything outside our universe is utterly unknowable and logically equivalent to something that doesn't exist.

Gotta call it something.

Too many "religious" connotations for me.
I'm happy to say "I don't know".