I am agnostic. However, I don't think that my inability to perceive an uncaused first cause creator in any way precludes the possibility of that god's existence. Likewise I don't attempt to subject that god to the laws of physics or any other criteria applicable to the cosmos. And while I have, in my search for the T, the Truth, relinquished belief in the inerrancy of the Bible or any religion, I do recognize that I'm not sufficiently perceptive to declare unequivocally that there is no God.
@Daruqe - I can't shake the sense that there is "something" like a god, but I don't believe in Allah or Yahweh or any specific god or gods. If there is a god, I expect to be inconceivably surprised. One thing that makes sense to me though, is that god is consciousness, the consciousness that created the cosmos. And we are incarnations of that consciousness in these bodies. Then, at death, we go back to the One. But that's just me thinking; no way I claim it to be truth. How about you?
I don't, and probably the biggest reason I don't is because consciousness can't exist without a brain. 1. We have no examples of conscious beings without a brain and 2. Any alteration in the physical brain results in changes--sometimes radical--in the personality of a person. Also, what about other animals? They're conscious too (the ones with brains). Do they "return to the One" too?
I think anthropomorphizing the universe--thinking about the universe in terms of people and being controlled by a person is all too natural; it makes intuitive sense to see the hand of people in the universe, but the more we learn about the universe, we see that it's not full of people like we'd expect. Rainbows aren't the sign of a covenant; the earth isn't stretched upon man-made pillars; man wasn't hand-made from clay--as weird as it is, things just sort of happen on their own.
@Daruqe - For me, the reliance on the brain for consciousness has yet to be shown. The driver leaves the car. Manifestations of what we call consciousness diminish or vanish altogether, but if consciousness exists apart from the material world, the effect would be the same. I'm not saying what is, just not ready to connect dots that seem to have mega space between.
I don't know about humans, let alone plants and animals! By "the One," I mean the collective consciousness, not Big Daddy.
"the reliance on the brain for consciousness has yet to be shown." All I say is you should look more into neurology. And really, it's the other way around: we know consciousness has at least something to do with the brain, so we'd have to show that something else is responsible for consciousness in order to believe it, because, whatever it may be, we can't detect it.
@Daruqe - You speak of a consciousness that is tied to the brain. I speak of one that inhabits the body and interacts with its environment via the brain, etc. When the brain is damaged, the consciousness is driving a malfunctioning vehicle. That is if the consciousness (the real me) even remains with the body at that point. And thanks to string theory etc., even physical scientists are dealing with things that can't be tested, proven or demonstrated. The gap is narrowing. Nice cuppa tea?
From my understanding, string theory is just speculation--it's not even a theory despite it's name--it's just one idea to link quantum mechanics to gravity, and it's NOT agreed upon by a majority of scientists. I get the problem of consciousness, it's the religious argument I am THE most sympathetic to, and despite what you may hear, I don't think science has a satisfactory solution to it--one that speaks to our intuitions. But I think that's the real problem here: intuition.
Intuition suggests that consciousness is separate from the body, but intuition is no basis for knowledge. While I can point to experiments that suggest that consciousness is tied to the brain, there's nothing I can point to that suggests that it's separate. What could a consciousness without a brain do? The brain thinks, the brain feels, the brain stores memories, the brain decides; there's no evidence for anything manipulating the brain to do this, even if it is possible.
@Daruqe - I know. But I am hoping that we are invisible drivers of these cars we call bodies, and though the expression of consciousness through the bodies is how materialists assess it, it's nice to think they're wrong. But one thing that does give my position some credibility, from my perspective anyway, is how people attain or glimpse "enlightenment," and also the way consciousness is affected by DMT and other so-called entheogens. There's a lot going on, I do believe.
There are those that can define what THEY (as individuals) think God (or whatever it is they believe in) is. It almost universally falls apart when you get 2 or more of them together as you'll end up with as many definitions of God as there are people in the room. Which, comes as as surprise, at least in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim world view, because they have a book that alledgely tells them what God is. Ironically, you get a more coherent answer from druids, who do not have a "rule book".
I like this. Im just a bit confused about agnostic atheism and agnostic theism. Technically, no one can define what it is they believe in or don't believe in... So everyone is agnostic? Then why would agnostic atheist or agnostic theist try to be any different if neither of them know? That doesn't seem right.
@derekmasses No. I don't think that was the prof's point.
Personally, if someone asked me if there is such a thing as a "god", I would have to answer that, while I don't believe that such a thing exists, I can't really prove that it doesn't. So in that aspect, I would be a agnostic atheist. But, if someone asked me if (one example of many) the "god" of the Bible exist, a "god" whose feats and attributes have been described, I can say without a doubt in my heart that it does not exist.
You know what I don't get, if god is so perfect shouldn't everything be perfect and if their is a god and it created man then isn't man a representation of his imperfection.
The definition of matter that you've discarded is actually a valid one in Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Moreover, any definition broken down, step by step, ultimately becomes either vague, circular or presented using a combination of secondary and relational attributes. You would expect that to happen when trying to describe the first element of causality. I know God, but He's unique - It's hard for me to compare Him with anything you can relate to, but it doesn't deny my knowledge of Him.
"How do you know this god? And what do you know about God? What is the source of your knowledge and what do you know?"
Technically, everyone has a basic concepts of God, right/wrong and infinity, though unable to fully describe them. I would just be repeating the obvious. The technical knowledge comes from observable evidence and intimate knowledge comes from believing his promises found in Scripture. I believe Jesus to be God the Son, based on studying available data, Bible included.
I do get my beliefs from the Bible, but I would't believe it, unless I had a good reason. It has proven itself to me (and to a notable body of scholars) by being the most reliable ancient text and giving accurate predictions (which you know of). If it has a basis in reality, it can be confirmed by it (see "Born Believers: The Naturalness of Childhood Theism" among others). Yes, faith in his promises, when tested, gives us knowledge of who he is (truthful, faithful, trustworthy etc).
@MichaelGabrielR You're not really answering my questions, much less telling me coherently what it is you call "god." Bottom line: my guess is you cannot coherently explain what "god" is; you make my point for me.
BTW, if you're a Christian, you very much *do* get your beliefs--at least many of them--from the Bible. It is the purported revelation on which Christianity in its many and varied forms is based. Without it, there would be no Christianity.
People are taking this as "Christians are Agnostics, not Theists" but the fact is Nosticism is whether the knowledge of a deity's existence is possible or not, while Theism is the actual belief in the deity
If you think you cannot understand the nature of God's existence, yet you still believe he exists, then congratulations; you're an Agnostic Theist & anyone who says "God works in mysterious ways" is also an Agnostic Theist, so go have fun being Agnostic Theists together
@ProfMTH The fact they take a comment about their beliefs as a personal attack on them is really upsetting, even if it's just trying to clear things up
Still, I'm glad there are people like you out there; you're offering some very good information & pointing things out that are often ignored or left unanswered, it's very helpful indeed
ProfMTH, could you give some examples of primary attributes - such as the primary attributes of your father, or of matter, or of a soda bottle; you gave loads of examples of relational and secondary attributes, but none of primary attributes.
God is a fictional eternal father figure who is said to have created us. is all knowing yet created a human and made them not perfect yet teaching from the christian bible [buy bull] when we mess up because we are human he punishes us with the relm of the dark lord. how could something be all mighty without a lesser being reminding them they are powerful. so were here to be tested of our faith to something like god no matter what yet parents lie about santa until the child gets proof of the BS
Incredible is the great number of people that can't recognize the obviousness of this video's ridiculousness. ProfMTH claims that believers or Theists (Christians) are non-existent because they are in fact, Agnostics. If that were true, then why isn't ProfMTH's Youtube channel dedicated to the destruction of Agnosticism?
All of the things that ProfMTH attributes to Agnostics (previously known as Christians) such as, illogical, irrational, unreasonable (merely negative, secondary & relational attributes) are in fact, attributable to himself because his Youtube channel is dedicated to the destruction of something non-existent (Christianity - Theism)
its a well known fact that heists turn to "faith" to back up their beliefs and that if put under a logical or prism, all religions crumble and fall and knowing this, i agree with everything saif in the video but i think that just as we can shut up and listen to anti-religious statements, which have always been so popular, we can sit down and listen to what theism has to say. a good argument is one where both sides understand their oponent´s base. we all hate religions but lets stop piking on dem
If ontology is not applicable to a Muslim's creed, then how are you validating your argument? Consciousness, according to materialists, is reducible to matter and/or energy, whereas idealists consider it primary. Are Muslims compelled to cater to this contradictory philosophy? What is obviously not matter or energy is conveniently reducible. Can unprovable unfalsifiable things or beings exist? Science or philosophy does not have that answer. The answer is the Quran. Peace!
Yeah, death's equivalent to the end of the life, however, death's primary attrib. isn't told to us here. Hell, noone gone there and came back to inform what's what anyway. Therefore i gotta assume it's a nice place. Thus spoke Andrew Marvell;
@iEmpyrea In Ontology, a primary and coherent premise must be established to affirm the existence of an idea. Admittedly, this argument doesn't disprove the idea, it's existence would be merely classified as unlikely or improbable. With that said, it seems the only thing responsible for making this principle a prerequisite to confirm an idea's existence is man's ego. It's more man's self-deception than a concrete argument. Limiting our ideas to only those which are fully understood is ridiculous
@tadpoleposition A primary and coherent premise is required to build and state thy idea in the first place, yeah. His argument disproves the idea completely though. Nobody seen angels either, and yet they believe in them. And they can't define them. They can draw pictures of them, as an imaginary work, fiction. Therefore,such a being's existence would be completely classified as unknown, in the dark, work in progress, etc.Thus,so long as there's nothing known,one only believes in fiction, jedi.
@iEmpyrea The great philosopher Darth Vader said, "I find your lack of faith disturbing." XD All isms are put under the same scrutiny and it leaves a huge void in our ideas. It's either the ontology formula is deficient or we are not applying it correctly. Leave it to us humans to get into such a pickle. The origin of this nonsense is philosophical materialism. An easy refutation to that is black magic. An unseen, immaterial (evil) force is definitely behind a black magician's feats.
X is the greatest possible being that could exist in any possible world.
Do all these sound like a "riddle" to you? I mean, when you are asking a riddle, you would ask it like this, am i right? And are those believers actually wanting US to solve the riddle that THEY do not know? That's cool.. you know...
@iEmpyrea I tried to get ProfMTH to establish any relevancy regarding the question "What is God?" for which he opined he did. If theists and atheists alike do not have a primary metaphysical description of an entity's makeup, how can one establish belief or disbelief in this entity? Not to mention the vast differences amongst the theists as to what negative, secondary, and relational attributes are applicable to this entity. The same argument can be made for death. It's the end of life. Huh?
@ProfMTH Aren't you a professor? Do you ever decide what is worth explaining in brief or in detail based on the amount of importance it has in accordance with, say, the final exam? I believe it is your discretion what information is withheld or touched upon briefly and what is discussed thoroughly with full detail. Are students content with this approach? Well, like it or not, they have to be. You can see where I am going with this. Are human beings content with God's approach? Yes and no.
@ProfMTH Very simply, you afford yourself a discretionary approach of information dissemination, using your best judgment in deciding what will be of least or greatest importance to your students based on various factors. This privilege is due to your obvious advantages in knowledge, wisdom, and influence. If a teacher is bestowed this favor over his students, can we also render this concession applicable to, say, God, or, if not God, any being possessing power and influence over others?
@tadpoleposition So the bottom line is that I'm right in this series and the "What is God?" video, i.e., believers do *not* know what "god" is. You simply wish to add that your god has, because of his "obvious advantages", opted not to reveal the information to human beings.
@ProfMTH Well, it would be logical to concede to your "bottom line" if the question "What is God?" is even relevant. Imagine teaching an entire semester, then preparing an exam with questions no one, except you, had the answers for. The type of responses from your students would mirror your very unwise decision to pose such questions and would garner such statements as "What is this?" and "What is that?". Proving the relevancy of the question is the first step in receiving a relevant response.
@ProfMTH I've viewed all 3 and fail to see where the relevancy is substantiated. "What is life for?" seems like a far more pertinent and pressing question than "What is God?" It's like going from addition straight to linear algebra. I mean, if a 4 year old asked you about the birds and the bees, would you present an elaborate breakdown of the reproductive process or simply say, "Mommies and daddies make babies?" Is it safe to say you prepare exams per my replies wielding the discretional sword?
@tadpoleposition "I've viewed all 3 and fail to see where the relevancy is substantiated."
Well, that's too bad. But your not seeing the relevance doesn't demonstrate that the question is irrelevant. No doubt you realize that. That there are other relevant questions doesn't demonstratate that this question is irrelevant. I hope you realize that. That you believe your god has a reason or several reasons for withholding this information doesn't demonstrate that the question is irrelevant.
@ProfMTH With whom does the burden of proof lie? During the OJ Simpson murder trial, I don't recall any prosecutors ask OJ, "How many touchdowns did you score in 1975?" The judge would've struck his gavel on the sound block and declared the question irrelevant. Logically, the one presenting the question would need to first deem the question relevant before posing it. So, go ahead. In what realm is this question relevant and/or to which audience? Until then, the relevancy of it is in question.
@tadpoleposition "So, go ahead. In what realm is this question relevant and/or to which audience?"
I've done 3 videos on this topic. That's approximately 1/2 hour of material. If the relevance escaped you, then I encourage you to watch them again. I'm not going to lay out my entire case yet again in a comment box because you don't get it.
@ProfMTH You remind me of a beggar, or sperm cell, who went from having nothing to having sight, hearing, intellect, provisions, a path to walk upon, and other innumerable favors only to turn and say to the Giver of these favors, "You haven't given me anything." Quran 40:61, "...Indeed, Allah is full of bounty to the people, but most of the people are not grateful." I watched them again and there is not a single statement in all 3 videos proving the question's relevancy. Part 3 is imminent.
And you are quickly becoming tedious. :-) As I've said, if it didn't get through to you after 3 videos, I'm not going to try to get it through your head in a comment box. Besides, something tells me you have a vested interest in not getting it.
@ProfMTH OK, I will pretend a relevancy was established and a fixed audience was recognized. In the realm of life, I think that's the established relevancy, explain how finding out "What is God?" benefits you and how an atheist uses this "insufficient" description to validate his rejection of God? Even you opined that the believer and disbeliever lack a primary metaphysical blueprint of God. How then does one deny or affirm based on the "absence" of this knowledge? It is tediously nonsensical.
@ProfMTH That raises an interesting point. The absence of a primary and coherent ontology renders the ideas of god, theism, and atheism completely meaningless. Agnosticism also suffers from the same scrutiny. Maybe were all just fnarfs. ;-) How many other countless ideas we, for some strange reason, believe in also fail? Do we reevaluate our use/abuse of our ontology dilemna or simply have faith? Good thing I believe that ontology stuff doesn't hold any weight in the relevant world. Peace!
@ProfMTH An invention of man's mind, according to you, God's existence, is refuted by another invention of man's mind, the ontology argument. An ontological materialist or idealist cannot falsify something if that thing is not testable under their guidelines. God is said to not exist within the known universe, cancelling Him from any said ontological discussion. That is why "atheists" say God's existence is unlikely or improbable. Otherwise, they would contradict their school of philosophy.
@ProfMTH An invention of man's mind, according to you, God's existence, is refuted by another invention of man's mind, the ontology argument. An ontological materialist or idealist cannot falsify an idea if that idea is not testable under their guidelines. God is said to not exist within the known universe, cancelling Him from any said ontological discussion. That is why "atheists" say God's existence is unlikely or improbable. Otherwise, they would contradict their school of philosophy.
I'm not bright enough for this discussion; nevertheless: 1. If you deny that "spirit" or "spiritual" or "supernatural" have meaning -- if you say they describe nothing (whereas you say "natural" or "material" DOES have meaning), aren't you by definition denying the possibility of God? 2. Doesn't an agnostic believe it's impossible to know whether or not there's a god (not that there is or isn't, but we can't describe him)? 3. If you exclude the non-rational, don't you lose love and beauty, too?
@gmsherry1953 1. If you deny that "spirit" or "spiritual" or "supernatural" have meaning -- if you say they describe nothing...aren't you by definition denying the possibility of God?"
No. It's still possible that these things have cognitive content and that there is a god, but I've yet to see anyone show that to be the case.
"2. Doesn't an agnostic believe it's impossible to know whether or not there's a god (not that there is or isn't, but we can't describe him)?"
@ProfMTH Re: (3) at 7:44 you said Christianity was either non-rational or irrational; I'm asking if something being non-rational is sufficient to exclude it from consideration. To be clear, I'm a doubter; I no longer find the Christian explanation worthy of belief. But I am leery of dismissing too easily the spiritual. I gather you would reject as meaningless a definition that said the spiritual is that which is not made of elementary particles and thus cannot be measured scientifically ...
@gmsherry1953 (cont) You might say if we can't measure it and agree on it, how can we discuss it intelligently? And I might agree. But what if ... WHAT IF ... the spiritual created and sustains and rules the physical, and is the most important aspect of our existence and experience, and we reject it just because we can't weigh it or see it in a cloud chamber? I'm agnostic not by conviction but from despair -- no explanation for existence seems sufficient to me. I fear I'm missing something.
@gmsherry1953 These questions can be tough and emotionally draining as one puzzles through them. I vividly recall my own feelings of despair and frustration as I was working through many of them during my transition away from religious faith. All I can say to you is that I don't think "the spiritual" has any meaning beyond saying what it is not, i.e., not the physical. I've yet to see anyone make sense of it. IMHO, it doesn't admit of being made sense of. So claims such as "the spiritual"...
(con't) @gmsherry1953 ...created and sustains and rules the physical" truly make no sense to me. I don't know that such statements *ever* made sense to me, but when I was a believer I didn't give it a whole lot of thought.
@ProfMTH For argument's sake, I'll continue, and I'll start with consciousness, which as far as I know is a mystery to science. Is consciousness SIMPLY the sum of the chemical and electrical activity in your or my brain at any given moment, or do those create consciousness, without being consciousness itself? Is awareness more than purely physical? Love, fear, longing, anger may be CAUSED by chemicals, but are they more than JUST chemicals? Is consciousness evidence of spirit? Or an illusion?
Why are primary attributes needed to be known for there to be knowledge of an entity?
If you hear a loud 'bump!' in the night, and you sit up and wonder what made the noise, is your musing pointless just because you don't know the primary attributes of what made the noise?
@ProfMTH No, a bump in the night is almost certainly physical. Now, if I observed something that seemed to defy the laws of nature, such as the dead rising, levitation, transmutation, etc., then I would allow for the possibility of forces beyond those found in my accostumed worldview.
@WouldbeSage "Now, if I observed something that seemed to defy the laws of nature, such as the dead rising, levitation, transmutation, etc., then I would allow for the possibility of forces beyond those found in my accostumed worldview."
Could they not be heretofore unknown aspects of the laws of nature or perhaps merely malfunctions in your perception?
"Could they not be heretofore unknown aspects of the laws of nature..."
Of course they could! That is always worth investigating. If a strange event did occur, we should be open to any comprehensive explanation that the evidence and circumstances indicate.
"...or perhaps merely malfunctions in your perception?"
Also possible - although unlikely if others are witnessing or witnessed the same events, and can corroborate my report of what I perceived.
@WouldbeSage "...although unlikely if others are witnessing or witnessed the same events, and can corroborate my report of what I perceived."
Oh, check out the stories of, e.g., thousands and thousands of religious believers claiming to have witnessed the Sun spinning in Medjugorje (the site of alleged apparitions of the Virgin Mary).
In any case, my point is that it would be perfectly appropriate to investigate such things with the physical qua primary attribute.
So here is the question I can't avoid, whenever I watch a video that says believers fail to define God. Whenever I watch these videos, it is never clarified what they WOULD accept, only what they wouldn't. No example is given of what a satisfactory ontological definition for something would be.
I'm an atheist, but I can't help but be bothered by this line of reasoning. You make a good point, but without illustrating what you *would* accept, it doesn't help much.
@TransparentChocolate I would accept something coherent as opposed to the incoherent stuff theists offer. I'd also just accept the concession that everyone--theist or not--is agnostic on this.
@ProfMTH Well, you don't have to worry about that from me, I fully admit agnosticism. :)
But what I meant is, an example. If one were to give an example of a consistent ontological definition, that would be very helpful.
I agree with your point, it's just that I struggle to think of what would qualify, not just with God, but with concepts in general. For instance, matter. I struggle to think of a coherent definition of matter based on what you rejected in the video.
How can I give a definition when we have no way of detecting whatever it is that God is made of. The Bible doesn't say either other than he is in spirit form. The Bible does say that Jesus is his corporeal form. We're talking about a being that is far too large to try to understand in human terms.
Your question is unreasonable, as unreasonable as me asking you to show me a primary attribute of an atom. Can you define what atoms are? And don't give me the mathematical model about "electrons clouds/shells" show me proof they exist. I want to see a picture, or a sound, something.
@MoreLoveJesus Look it up. Just recently, scientists have been able to take pictures of them under scanning tunneling microscope in google images.plus, the model works because chemistry works and has been able to make new elements. physicists fire single molecules at one another at the Large hadron collider- and have gotten some really cool results. the results might interest you.
Prof, I've been using this 'all Theists are agnostics' argument for years now with some very interesting results. It usually takes a while for anyone to see that we are all agnostic about god(s) - agnosticism is the only honest position when dealing with god(s). Once an (a)theist sees that everyone is either an agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist the conversation has an interesting basis for jumping into further discussion, usually surrounding the nature and necessity of 'belief'.
I always posited the question like this: if a wizard is a human with powers, what's Yahwe without his powers? We all know what we can't do, see him, understand him, test him, which say nothing about him. And you can't apply the terms omnipotent, omniscient etc. to him, because they contradict each other. And there are clear cases (also in the Bible) where Yahwe cannot do everything, like forgiving mankind without a blood sacrifice, fighting iron chariots and healing amputees.
@viridismonasteriense If God is an invisible, interdimensional/ outside of time and space, eternal, non-physical being, how could he have possibly made us in his image? It's the arrogant and deluded concept that we are like God, his chosen, favourite species, race, tribe, or prophet. We clearly are not. We are visible, physical, mortal primates.
I love videos that go into great painstaking detail about the logical flaws of theists. Excellently done, very well done.
Here I was all tied up on the notion that there was no evidence for god, and that was the trump card to defeat any christian argument....but here you have gone a step further, and shown that the very concept itself is flawed. I see I have more to learn. Again, very well done. :)
I disagree with the premise that you have to define what you are looking for before you look for it.
For example, Think about woodpeckers.
Lets say that i live in a region with pine trees. I go to a new place, and pine trees in this area have holes in them. I'm familiar with the tree, but not the holes. Logically, it makes sense to look for a creature or event that has the secondary attribute of "It drills holes in trees", but i need no other knowlege of what I'm looking for.
@ChechireYeti In your search for what's causing the holes in the trees, would it even enter into your mind that the cause is something other than some aspect of the physical universe?
Comments are too long, so I'm sorry if I will repeat what anyone else has said.
I am an atheist (gnostic concerning the Abrahamic god) but would like to take a stab at your 'challenge'.
Before I do so I must point out that you video lacks a vital point, an example (or examples) of a primary attribute. You say this is the most important point yet you do not give any scope for what this attribute could be in a being.
Since no example of a primary attribute is given I must use my own best judgement.
A god is a being which exists only in dimensions beyond the 4 we interact with. This being has what humans would call a 'mind' and interacts with material present in 'our' 4 dimensions indirectly. The 'brain' of this being exists in more than 3 dimensions, which allows for more 'mind forming connections', giving the being much greater cognitive capacities than humans.
@bignastydragon "A god is a being which exists only in dimensions beyond the 4 we interact with."
What does that mean?
"This being has what humans would call a 'mind'...."
Do you mean this "god" has a brain? If not, that what *do* you mean?
"The 'brain of this being exists in more than 3 dimensions...."
So it's a physical brain that this "god" has, correct? If so, we're getting somewhere. And what does it mean to say this brain "exists in more than 3 dimensions"?
@ProfMTH Like I said, I'm atheist and am pulling this out of my ass.
You haven't given an example of a primary quality for me to go off of, without it I'm flailing about in the dark making stuff up which is more comprehensive than century old dogma.
Humans work well in our 4 dimensions, and the theist position is that 'god' is timeless and spaceless, and therefore must exist (to interact at all with the universe) in dimensions different to our 4.
@bignastydragon I defined 'primary attribute' and I did give an example (matter). What you're up against here is not the lack of an example to work with, but rather the fact that the god concept is hopelessly incoherent.
@ProfMTH I know that the god concept is hopelessly incoherent, I just wish to do a better job than believers at describing a possible god.
As for the primary example, I am very unhappy with that as an example. 'What is matter?' Is a question which comes to mind. I could simply state that the god is comprised of energy and force interactions which behave similar to what we see in our familiar 4 dimensions, but is present in the 'god dimensions'. Although most believers would not be happy with it
@bignastydragon " I know that the god concept is hopelessly incoherent."
Then why are you going on as if the problem were something other than the fact that the concept is incoherent? In other words, it seems we agree, but you're acting as if we don't. I'm puzzled.
"I could simply state that the god is comprised of energy...."
Well, you could, but that would require you to say that this god is part of the physical universe and not the aphysical thing that believers wish to insist...
(con't) @bignastydragon ...that their god is--although, of course, in saying that, they are merely saying what their god is not, as opposed to what their god is. In other words, energy & force interactions are part of the physical universe. Believers insist that their god is not. Since they are the ones who contend that there's something other than the physical universe and what lives in it, it is incumbent upon them to coherently account for what that something else is--and they can't do it.
@ProfMTH Don't be too puzzled, I only wish to see if I can provide a more coherent idea than the vast majority of believers.
My idea does not have to actually be coherent, just more so than those presented by believers.
To achieve this I must make concessions which the believer cannot. If the definition of the universe is everything, then the god must be part of the universe. This god can therefore not have 'begun' the universe, and must have formed later.
@ProfMTH I wish to see what I need to do to make the god concept coherent. It must be a compromise, it must be scientifically understandable and possible whilst keeping as much of ideals which believers need for this being to be 'worthy' of worship.
I think it is important to be able to come up with something like this if we are to discuss the topic with believers. We must be familiar with the thought process and pitfalls of thinking leading to a coherent idea of 'god'.
Also, the knowledge/definition of a thing is ALWAYS incomplete. So, for example, would you deny the ontological parsing of a primitive man who defined a star for you, by showing you a tiny white dot in the night sky and saying "that's a star?" He doesn't know it's fundamentally the same thing as the sun, and that it makes light by nuclear fusion. Would you prohibit him from talking about "stars." Would you deny his assertion that "stars exist?"
@GetMeThere1 The primary atribute would be along the lines of a "small white dot in the night sky". The primative man does not assert that a luminous ball of plasma exists, he asserts that a small white dot exists in the night sky. I would not prohibit him from talking about this dot.
Which begs the question, is it sufficient to have a incorrect definition so long as it is coherent and meets ProfMTH's primary/secondary attribute criteria?
@xxzmikezxx : I think worries about incorrectness are irrelevant. We still don't know FULLY what ANYTHING is, we simply list the attributes we know (or propose). As I commented in part 1, I don't understand why this "god" definition is unsatisfactory: Entity which created the universe to fulfill its (unknown) purpose, and which may occasionally communicate with some elements of its creation in order to further its purposes. I'm simply and truly puzzled by Prof's focus on this "definition" prob
@ProfMTH : But I wasn't offering the star as something with "evidence." I offered it as something with a definition: a white dot in the night sky. Truly, I just don't get your point in these videos. I haven't had a problem with "definitions." In my experience, people don't have difficulty defining their concepts. It seems a small issue. What's the problem with the definition I offered recently in part 1 of this vid? Maybe we're at cross purposes regarding what "definition" means?
@GetMeThere1 "Truly, I just don't get your point in these videos."
I know. And you and I have gone over it before and you still don't get the point. Therefore I don't see any reason to go for another round of your asking me the same questions and my giving you the same answers. Thanks.
@ProfMTH : Well come on. I really don't think you're trying (and someone else has just commented that you're not telling us what a primary attribute IS). I would settle for a response in part 1 to the definition I offer (and which seems to me to be directly implied by what believers have to say). What is unsatisfactory with my "definition of god?" (other than that one will find there is no evidence of such a thing)
@GetMeThere1 Stars as viewed from Earth have a few undeniable and universally recognizable attributes that we can all agree on no matter what our level of knowledge is. I think ProfMTH's point is that the attributes theists use to describe their god(s) are generally too nebulous to have a universally accepted meaning, and that when pressed to give more precise explanations they generally resort to "we can't know" or similar. The point is not that they shouldn't be allowed to discuss god.
@Griexxt : Perhaps. I've certainly never asked believers for their definitions (I suppose I've just assumed they had them). I assume I've spoken for them with the definition I've papered in several comments here: Entity which created the universe to fulfill its (unknown) purpose, and which may occasionally communicate with some elements of its creation in order to further its purposes.
Is that definition unusable ontologically (ignoring that there's no actual evidence of such a thing)?
@Griexxt : OK. So are you saying that the definition I gave is....contrary to what believers have in mind when they speak of god? I mean, is it really a mystery? Believers think "god" created everything, with some purpose in mind, and wants/requires some kind of actions/responses/"faith" from people as part of the purpose it had in mind. To me it's sort of obvious that's how people tacitly "define" the god they worship.
@Griexxt : Well....by that criterion I suppose you would have to say that gravity doesn't exist, since we know it only by what it "does." I think you and the Prof are playing some sort of strange semantics game, in which certain arbitrary attributes have to be defined in order to say something "exists." Your (not well explained) criteria would seem to present substantial problems for science, for example (I'm a scientist, btw). more....
I think what the Prof is getting at is that you have to at least have some meaningful knowledge about the thing you say you believe in to be able to call it a belief. For example, I had a discussion with a guy who said he believed God had "spoken the universe into existence". That's very poetic, but it doesn't mean anything. So my understanding of the issue is that if you can't describe what you believe in in anything but the most nebulous terms you can't really call it a belief.
@Griexxt : So, in science, definitions are not primary, EXISTENCE is primary. IOW, you may define anything in any manner you please--it doesn't matter, because your phenomenon or process is of no interest until you can DEMONSTRATE that which you have defined. There is no criteria for "definitions," as long as that which is defined can be demonstrated.
Which is why I don't really get the point of the vid--WHATEVER the definition, where's the DEMONSTRATION!!??
"god is the greatest being that can exist" meet the god hes name is bluewhale. lol i have wasted my time with religius people. they dont even know what is what they are beliving.
i think it is within a theist advantage to never answer the "what is god" question-- that way they can say whatever they want-- god is whatever they want him to be. to positively and coherently answer the question would put the believer in a box-- since " god does not change." this would stop the evolution of the concept of god as we have seen through out history.
If we want to give an example of ontology, a chair would be a bad example, for a chair is merely a human concept. They are all composed of different materials and what is considered a chair is only done so because someone decides to. In fact, the best example of ontology that doesn't hit any grey areas - that is objective - I would give would be that of a hydrogen atom: a structure composed of one proton and one electron, about 2.4 angstroms in diameter and weighing 1.007 u. Now, what is God?
Idk, it would seem difficult to identify anything using your logic. In your conversation about the chair, yes we know its something we sit on, but does it satisfy your logical criteria of what it is? I answered its function but not what it is, but then again how does your reasoning prove what anything IS? Prove to me what a chair is or use another example, please.
I'm throwing this up in the air just to hear your response...
God IS infinite/everything, disprove that with your "theorem" plz
Continued2: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying knowing what god is is sufficient for knowing he exists. I know what a unicorn is, but also know one doesn't exist. Mastery of a term is sufficient for knowing what something is. Kids know what a lot of things are, but are unable to give you anything close to a satisfactory definition for anything. Ask a kid what grass or a house is (or a chair for that matter).
Continued: Even if you think there's something wrong with those examples, let's consider the chair that Lincoln is sitting on at the Lincoln memorial. This is clearly a chair, but was not built for the express purpose of being sat on. Maybe you're more clever than me, and can think of one, but I think you'll run into similar problems, and let's not forget, we're only talking about chairs here. We can shift to something more abstract and run into more problems.
Because any definition of a chair that I am capable of giving doesn't tell you what a chair is, only some features of chairs. Here's a few examples:
A chair is something you sit on: you can sit on rocks
...something man made you sit on: we frequently sit on banks of fountains, curbs, etc.
...something man made you sit on, that is made for the express purpose of being sat on: a toilet is not a chair, neither is a bench, and likewise for a bed.
Of course I know what I chair is, that's my point. But I can't define what one is. Give me a definition of a chair, I think you'll find it's harder than you think. Nonetheless, I don't doubt that you could (for example) tell the difference between a rock and a chair, or a couch and a chair, or any number other things that are functionally similar to chairs, but yet we know are not chairs.
Although I agree w/most of your viewpoints, I consider myself a Staunch Agnostic. I firmly believe that it's impossible to know either way. What I like about Agnosticism is that it's based on knowledge & evidence & leaves the realm of possibilities open. Reality could be a simulation for aliens or our other selves in parallel worlds. Reincarnation is possible. I think we'll have a better idea of "what god could be" or "what reality is" after they've studied the LHC results at CERN.
Atheism is not the dogma that God doesn't exist. It is simply the refusal to believe in theism. Furthermore, as ProfMTH has claimed in the video, agnosticism is not exclusive from theism and atheism. One can be both agnostic and an atheist.
Furthermore, hard agnosticism (the belief that the existence of God is unknowable) is as irrational as theism itself. Where's the evidence for that?
@FluidwithinStrife The idea is that there is no true evidence to either prove or disprove the existence of god. So what's your point? It's a belief concerning the lack of evidence. Yes one can comfortably straddle both beliefs, but that's because they're probly too afraid to give an honest opinion on the matter. Or they simply don't know what to think, or don't wanna think about it.
Note, I'm not saying that you can't say that P is Q, in your particular sense of "is", but I would like to have a clear enough definition of the term, if it is the case, as you seem to suggest that is tells us something more of the subject P than the predicate Q does.
@ProfMTH Ok, I'm still not sure about the second question though. The what something is as opposed to what something isn't, isn't too clear, but you later say that "it seems to have cognitive content" which seems to be the only indication of something that can't be turned around and asked the other way. So does positive attribute actually mean "has cognitive content"?
@asdaarg Well, yes, but that's not all. Think of the examples I gave in the video of attributes believers often give for the god concept, e.g., immaterial, supernatural, spirit, aphysical. All of those are references to what the god is NOT, as opposed to what the god is. They tell us nothing about what the god is, but only what the god is not, e.g, not material, not natural, not physical. They're negative attributes. Positive attributes point to what something is.
I am agnostic. However, I don't think that my inability to perceive an uncaused first cause creator in any way precludes the possibility of that god's existence. Likewise I don't attempt to subject that god to the laws of physics or any other criteria applicable to the cosmos. And while I have, in my search for the T, the Truth, relinquished belief in the inerrancy of the Bible or any religion, I do recognize that I'm not sufficiently perceptive to declare unequivocally that there is no God.
KarenLeFemme 2 months ago
@KarenLeFemme
Do you BELIEVE in a god(s)?
Daruqe 1 month ago
@Daruqe - I can't shake the sense that there is "something" like a god, but I don't believe in Allah or Yahweh or any specific god or gods. If there is a god, I expect to be inconceivably surprised. One thing that makes sense to me though, is that god is consciousness, the consciousness that created the cosmos. And we are incarnations of that consciousness in these bodies. Then, at death, we go back to the One. But that's just me thinking; no way I claim it to be truth. How about you?
KarenLeFemme 1 month ago
@KarenLeFemme
I don't, and probably the biggest reason I don't is because consciousness can't exist without a brain. 1. We have no examples of conscious beings without a brain and 2. Any alteration in the physical brain results in changes--sometimes radical--in the personality of a person. Also, what about other animals? They're conscious too (the ones with brains). Do they "return to the One" too?
Daruqe 1 month ago
@KarenLeFemme
I think anthropomorphizing the universe--thinking about the universe in terms of people and being controlled by a person is all too natural; it makes intuitive sense to see the hand of people in the universe, but the more we learn about the universe, we see that it's not full of people like we'd expect. Rainbows aren't the sign of a covenant; the earth isn't stretched upon man-made pillars; man wasn't hand-made from clay--as weird as it is, things just sort of happen on their own.
Daruqe 1 month ago
@Daruqe - For me, the reliance on the brain for consciousness has yet to be shown. The driver leaves the car. Manifestations of what we call consciousness diminish or vanish altogether, but if consciousness exists apart from the material world, the effect would be the same. I'm not saying what is, just not ready to connect dots that seem to have mega space between.
I don't know about humans, let alone plants and animals! By "the One," I mean the collective consciousness, not Big Daddy.
KarenLeFemme 1 month ago
@KarenLeFemme
"the reliance on the brain for consciousness has yet to be shown." All I say is you should look more into neurology. And really, it's the other way around: we know consciousness has at least something to do with the brain, so we'd have to show that something else is responsible for consciousness in order to believe it, because, whatever it may be, we can't detect it.
Daruqe 1 month ago
@Daruqe - You speak of a consciousness that is tied to the brain. I speak of one that inhabits the body and interacts with its environment via the brain, etc. When the brain is damaged, the consciousness is driving a malfunctioning vehicle. That is if the consciousness (the real me) even remains with the body at that point. And thanks to string theory etc., even physical scientists are dealing with things that can't be tested, proven or demonstrated. The gap is narrowing. Nice cuppa tea?
KarenLeFemme 1 month ago
@KarenLeFemme
From my understanding, string theory is just speculation--it's not even a theory despite it's name--it's just one idea to link quantum mechanics to gravity, and it's NOT agreed upon by a majority of scientists. I get the problem of consciousness, it's the religious argument I am THE most sympathetic to, and despite what you may hear, I don't think science has a satisfactory solution to it--one that speaks to our intuitions. But I think that's the real problem here: intuition.
Daruqe 1 month ago
@KarenLeFemme
Intuition suggests that consciousness is separate from the body, but intuition is no basis for knowledge. While I can point to experiments that suggest that consciousness is tied to the brain, there's nothing I can point to that suggests that it's separate. What could a consciousness without a brain do? The brain thinks, the brain feels, the brain stores memories, the brain decides; there's no evidence for anything manipulating the brain to do this, even if it is possible.
Daruqe 1 month ago
@Daruqe - I know. But I am hoping that we are invisible drivers of these cars we call bodies, and though the expression of consciousness through the bodies is how materialists assess it, it's nice to think they're wrong. But one thing that does give my position some credibility, from my perspective anyway, is how people attain or glimpse "enlightenment," and also the way consciousness is affected by DMT and other so-called entheogens. There's a lot going on, I do believe.
KarenLeFemme 1 month ago
There are those that can define what THEY (as individuals) think God (or whatever it is they believe in) is. It almost universally falls apart when you get 2 or more of them together as you'll end up with as many definitions of God as there are people in the room. Which, comes as as surprise, at least in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim world view, because they have a book that alledgely tells them what God is. Ironically, you get a more coherent answer from druids, who do not have a "rule book".
dj092768 2 months ago
Do you think Jesus could be agnostic?
derekmasses 2 months ago
I like this. Im just a bit confused about agnostic atheism and agnostic theism. Technically, no one can define what it is they believe in or don't believe in... So everyone is agnostic? Then why would agnostic atheist or agnostic theist try to be any different if neither of them know? That doesn't seem right.
derekmasses 2 months ago
@derekmasses No. I don't think that was the prof's point.
Personally, if someone asked me if there is such a thing as a "god", I would have to answer that, while I don't believe that such a thing exists, I can't really prove that it doesn't. So in that aspect, I would be a agnostic atheist. But, if someone asked me if (one example of many) the "god" of the Bible exist, a "god" whose feats and attributes have been described, I can say without a doubt in my heart that it does not exist.
palerider1775 1 month ago
You know what I don't get, if god is so perfect shouldn't everything be perfect and if their is a god and it created man then isn't man a representation of his imperfection.
Inkbleedful 3 months ago
The definition of matter that you've discarded is actually a valid one in Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Moreover, any definition broken down, step by step, ultimately becomes either vague, circular or presented using a combination of secondary and relational attributes. You would expect that to happen when trying to describe the first element of causality. I know God, but He's unique - It's hard for me to compare Him with anything you can relate to, but it doesn't deny my knowledge of Him.
MichaelGabrielR 5 months ago
@MichaelGabrielR "I know God"
How do you know this god? And what do you know about God?
"It's hard for me to compare Him with anything you can relate to, but it doesn't deny my knowledge of Him."
What is the source of your knowledge and what do you know?
ProfMTH 5 months ago
@ProfMTH
"How do you know this god? And what do you know about God? What is the source of your knowledge and what do you know?"
Technically, everyone has a basic concepts of God, right/wrong and infinity, though unable to fully describe them. I would just be repeating the obvious. The technical knowledge comes from observable evidence and intimate knowledge comes from believing his promises found in Scripture. I believe Jesus to be God the Son, based on studying available data, Bible included.
MichaelGabrielR 5 months ago
@MichaelGabrielR "Technically, everyone has a basic concepts of God...."
Technically? What do you mean? What are these "basic concepts of God" that "everyone" has and how does "everyone" get them?
"unable to fully describe them"
I didn't ask for a comprehensive explanation, I asked for a coherent one.
"The technical knowledge comes from observable evidence...."
Which is what?
"intimate knowledge comes from believing"
So faith is a source of knowledge?
ProfMTH 5 months ago
@ProfMTH
I do get my beliefs from the Bible, but I would't believe it, unless I had a good reason. It has proven itself to me (and to a notable body of scholars) by being the most reliable ancient text and giving accurate predictions (which you know of). If it has a basis in reality, it can be confirmed by it (see "Born Believers: The Naturalness of Childhood Theism" among others). Yes, faith in his promises, when tested, gives us knowledge of who he is (truthful, faithful, trustworthy etc).
MichaelGabrielR 5 months ago
@MichaelGabrielR You're not really answering my questions, much less telling me coherently what it is you call "god." Bottom line: my guess is you cannot coherently explain what "god" is; you make my point for me.
BTW, if you're a Christian, you very much *do* get your beliefs--at least many of them--from the Bible. It is the purported revelation on which Christianity in its many and varied forms is based. Without it, there would be no Christianity.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
People are taking this as "Christians are Agnostics, not Theists" but the fact is Nosticism is whether the knowledge of a deity's existence is possible or not, while Theism is the actual belief in the deity
If you think you cannot understand the nature of God's existence, yet you still believe he exists, then congratulations; you're an Agnostic Theist & anyone who says "God works in mysterious ways" is also an Agnostic Theist, so go have fun being Agnostic Theists together
Tarynus 6 months ago
@Tarynus Indeed. And, truth be told, I've gotten weary of trying to explain this.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH The fact they take a comment about their beliefs as a personal attack on them is really upsetting, even if it's just trying to clear things up
Still, I'm glad there are people like you out there; you're offering some very good information & pointing things out that are often ignored or left unanswered, it's very helpful indeed
Tarynus 6 months ago
@Tarynus Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH That's ok ^_^
Tarynus 6 months ago
ProfMTH, could you give some examples of primary attributes - such as the primary attributes of your father, or of matter, or of a soda bottle; you gave loads of examples of relational and secondary attributes, but none of primary attributes.
MagnusThiHan 6 months ago
God is a fictional eternal father figure who is said to have created us. is all knowing yet created a human and made them not perfect yet teaching from the christian bible [buy bull] when we mess up because we are human he punishes us with the relm of the dark lord. how could something be all mighty without a lesser being reminding them they are powerful. so were here to be tested of our faith to something like god no matter what yet parents lie about santa until the child gets proof of the BS
Cowboy109288 8 months ago
Enjoyed the video, but how would you define what electricity or gravity are, apart from their attributes?
snuju1 8 months ago
Incredible is the great number of people that can't recognize the obviousness of this video's ridiculousness. ProfMTH claims that believers or Theists (Christians) are non-existent because they are in fact, Agnostics. If that were true, then why isn't ProfMTH's Youtube channel dedicated to the destruction of Agnosticism?
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
@Chuichupachichi "ProfMTH claims that believers or Theists (Christians) are non-existent because they are in fact, Agnostics."
No, ProfMTH doesn't claim that. But as ever you show yourself to be horribly confused and deeply delusional.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
All of the things that ProfMTH attributes to Agnostics (previously known as Christians) such as, illogical, irrational, unreasonable (merely negative, secondary & relational attributes) are in fact, attributable to himself because his Youtube channel is dedicated to the destruction of something non-existent (Christianity - Theism)
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
The question "What is ProfMTH?" is logically prior to the question "Does ProfMTH exist?"
Thus, to answer that ProfMTH is a human being, Professor, homosexual & a Youtuber, is logically & rationally required, prior to ProfMTH's existence
Unfortunately, also required are a crystal ball & the throwing of chicken bones upon a table... the psychic, Madame Charlatan may also be of help
If ProfMTH first exists, prior to answering that he's a human, Professor, gay etc. then that's cheating & invalid
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
You make good points but almost too much information.. No offense but this type of teaching puts me to sleep
seckusa 9 months ago
@seckusa "You make good points but almost too much information.. No offense but this type of teaching puts me to sleep."
Then you should go watch less informative videos that will keep you awake.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
its a well known fact that heists turn to "faith" to back up their beliefs and that if put under a logical or prism, all religions crumble and fall and knowing this, i agree with everything saif in the video but i think that just as we can shut up and listen to anti-religious statements, which have always been so popular, we can sit down and listen to what theism has to say. a good argument is one where both sides understand their oponent´s base. we all hate religions but lets stop piking on dem
esperoquenoestepilla 10 months ago
What is Dark Matter?
Mick116 10 months ago
excellent... yet ANOTHER knock-out punch to theism. thanks so much for expanding my own anti-theistic arsenal : )
Bkkhngr81 11 months ago
@Bkkhngr81 You're welcome. Glad you found it helpful.
ProfMTH 11 months ago
If ontology is not applicable to a Muslim's creed, then how are you validating your argument? Consciousness, according to materialists, is reducible to matter and/or energy, whereas idealists consider it primary. Are Muslims compelled to cater to this contradictory philosophy? What is obviously not matter or energy is conveniently reducible. Can unprovable unfalsifiable things or beings exist? Science or philosophy does not have that answer. The answer is the Quran. Peace!
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
Yeah, death's equivalent to the end of the life, however, death's primary attrib. isn't told to us here. Hell, noone gone there and came back to inform what's what anyway. Therefore i gotta assume it's a nice place. Thus spoke Andrew Marvell;
The grave 's a fine and private place,
But none, I think, do there embrace.
Oh. Well... Don't mind me :p
iEmpyrea 1 year ago
@iEmpyrea In Ontology, a primary and coherent premise must be established to affirm the existence of an idea. Admittedly, this argument doesn't disprove the idea, it's existence would be merely classified as unlikely or improbable. With that said, it seems the only thing responsible for making this principle a prerequisite to confirm an idea's existence is man's ego. It's more man's self-deception than a concrete argument. Limiting our ideas to only those which are fully understood is ridiculous
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition A primary and coherent premise is required to build and state thy idea in the first place, yeah. His argument disproves the idea completely though. Nobody seen angels either, and yet they believe in them. And they can't define them. They can draw pictures of them, as an imaginary work, fiction. Therefore,such a being's existence would be completely classified as unknown, in the dark, work in progress, etc.Thus,so long as there's nothing known,one only believes in fiction, jedi.
iEmpyrea 1 year ago
@iEmpyrea The great philosopher Darth Vader said, "I find your lack of faith disturbing." XD All isms are put under the same scrutiny and it leaves a huge void in our ideas. It's either the ontology formula is deficient or we are not applying it correctly. Leave it to us humans to get into such a pickle. The origin of this nonsense is philosophical materialism. An easy refutation to that is black magic. An unseen, immaterial (evil) force is definitely behind a black magician's feats.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
X is spirit;
X is my father;
X is supernatural;
X is the greatest possible being that could exist in any possible world.
Do all these sound like a "riddle" to you? I mean, when you are asking a riddle, you would ask it like this, am i right? And are those believers actually wanting US to solve the riddle that THEY do not know? That's cool.. you know...
iEmpyrea 1 year ago
@iEmpyrea So, what exactly are you disbelieving in?
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition That's what I'm askin! What it is that are you exactly believing/disbelieving in?
iEmpyrea 1 year ago
@iEmpyrea I tried to get ProfMTH to establish any relevancy regarding the question "What is God?" for which he opined he did. If theists and atheists alike do not have a primary metaphysical description of an entity's makeup, how can one establish belief or disbelief in this entity? Not to mention the vast differences amongst the theists as to what negative, secondary, and relational attributes are applicable to this entity. The same argument can be made for death. It's the end of life. Huh?
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
This is the best description of Agnosticism I've ever seen. Fascinating stuff.
Lordgaraj 1 year ago
@Lordgaraj Glad you liked it. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Aren't you a professor? Do you ever decide what is worth explaining in brief or in detail based on the amount of importance it has in accordance with, say, the final exam? I believe it is your discretion what information is withheld or touched upon briefly and what is discussed thoroughly with full detail. Are students content with this approach? Well, like it or not, they have to be. You can see where I am going with this. Are human beings content with God's approach? Yes and no.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition "You can see where I am going with this."
Let's assume I cannot see where you're going with this. Play it out for me.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Very simply, you afford yourself a discretionary approach of information dissemination, using your best judgment in deciding what will be of least or greatest importance to your students based on various factors. This privilege is due to your obvious advantages in knowledge, wisdom, and influence. If a teacher is bestowed this favor over his students, can we also render this concession applicable to, say, God, or, if not God, any being possessing power and influence over others?
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition So the bottom line is that I'm right in this series and the "What is God?" video, i.e., believers do *not* know what "god" is. You simply wish to add that your god has, because of his "obvious advantages", opted not to reveal the information to human beings.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Well, it would be logical to concede to your "bottom line" if the question "What is God?" is even relevant. Imagine teaching an entire semester, then preparing an exam with questions no one, except you, had the answers for. The type of responses from your students would mirror your very unwise decision to pose such questions and would garner such statements as "What is this?" and "What is that?". Proving the relevancy of the question is the first step in receiving a relevant response.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition "Proving the relevancy of the question is the first step...."
I did 3 videos on the relevance of the question.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I've viewed all 3 and fail to see where the relevancy is substantiated. "What is life for?" seems like a far more pertinent and pressing question than "What is God?" It's like going from addition straight to linear algebra. I mean, if a 4 year old asked you about the birds and the bees, would you present an elaborate breakdown of the reproductive process or simply say, "Mommies and daddies make babies?" Is it safe to say you prepare exams per my replies wielding the discretional sword?
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition "I've viewed all 3 and fail to see where the relevancy is substantiated."
Well, that's too bad. But your not seeing the relevance doesn't demonstrate that the question is irrelevant. No doubt you realize that. That there are other relevant questions doesn't demonstratate that this question is irrelevant. I hope you realize that. That you believe your god has a reason or several reasons for withholding this information doesn't demonstrate that the question is irrelevant.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH With whom does the burden of proof lie? During the OJ Simpson murder trial, I don't recall any prosecutors ask OJ, "How many touchdowns did you score in 1975?" The judge would've struck his gavel on the sound block and declared the question irrelevant. Logically, the one presenting the question would need to first deem the question relevant before posing it. So, go ahead. In what realm is this question relevant and/or to which audience? Until then, the relevancy of it is in question.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition "So, go ahead. In what realm is this question relevant and/or to which audience?"
I've done 3 videos on this topic. That's approximately 1/2 hour of material. If the relevance escaped you, then I encourage you to watch them again. I'm not going to lay out my entire case yet again in a comment box because you don't get it.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH You remind me of a beggar, or sperm cell, who went from having nothing to having sight, hearing, intellect, provisions, a path to walk upon, and other innumerable favors only to turn and say to the Giver of these favors, "You haven't given me anything." Quran 40:61, "...Indeed, Allah is full of bounty to the people, but most of the people are not grateful." I watched them again and there is not a single statement in all 3 videos proving the question's relevancy. Part 3 is imminent.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition "You remind me of a...."
And you are quickly becoming tedious. :-) As I've said, if it didn't get through to you after 3 videos, I'm not going to try to get it through your head in a comment box. Besides, something tells me you have a vested interest in not getting it.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH OK, I will pretend a relevancy was established and a fixed audience was recognized. In the realm of life, I think that's the established relevancy, explain how finding out "What is God?" benefits you and how an atheist uses this "insufficient" description to validate his rejection of God? Even you opined that the believer and disbeliever lack a primary metaphysical blueprint of God. How then does one deny or affirm based on the "absence" of this knowledge? It is tediously nonsensical.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@ProfMTH That raises an interesting point. The absence of a primary and coherent ontology renders the ideas of god, theism, and atheism completely meaningless. Agnosticism also suffers from the same scrutiny. Maybe were all just fnarfs. ;-) How many other countless ideas we, for some strange reason, believe in also fail? Do we reevaluate our use/abuse of our ontology dilemna or simply have faith? Good thing I believe that ontology stuff doesn't hold any weight in the relevant world. Peace!
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition "Good thing I believe that ontology stuff doesn't hold any weight in the relevant world."
I don't know about its being a good thing, but it certainly is one of the things that shields your core religious beliefs from scrutiny.
"Peace!"
To you, too.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH An invention of man's mind, according to you, God's existence, is refuted by another invention of man's mind, the ontology argument. An ontological materialist or idealist cannot falsify something if that thing is not testable under their guidelines. God is said to not exist within the known universe, cancelling Him from any said ontological discussion. That is why "atheists" say God's existence is unlikely or improbable. Otherwise, they would contradict their school of philosophy.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@ProfMTH An invention of man's mind, according to you, God's existence, is refuted by another invention of man's mind, the ontology argument. An ontological materialist or idealist cannot falsify an idea if that idea is not testable under their guidelines. God is said to not exist within the known universe, cancelling Him from any said ontological discussion. That is why "atheists" say God's existence is unlikely or improbable. Otherwise, they would contradict their school of philosophy.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
I'm not bright enough for this discussion; nevertheless: 1. If you deny that "spirit" or "spiritual" or "supernatural" have meaning -- if you say they describe nothing (whereas you say "natural" or "material" DOES have meaning), aren't you by definition denying the possibility of God? 2. Doesn't an agnostic believe it's impossible to know whether or not there's a god (not that there is or isn't, but we can't describe him)? 3. If you exclude the non-rational, don't you lose love and beauty, too?
gmsherry1953 1 year ago
@gmsherry1953 1. If you deny that "spirit" or "spiritual" or "supernatural" have meaning -- if you say they describe nothing...aren't you by definition denying the possibility of God?"
No. It's still possible that these things have cognitive content and that there is a god, but I've yet to see anyone show that to be the case.
"2. Doesn't an agnostic believe it's impossible to know whether or not there's a god (not that there is or isn't, but we can't describe him)?"
Agnosticism goes...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @gmsherry1953 ...to our not knowing, yes.
"3. If you exclude the non-rational, don't you lose love and beauty, too?"
I'm not sure what you mean by "exclude the non-rational."
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Re: (3) at 7:44 you said Christianity was either non-rational or irrational; I'm asking if something being non-rational is sufficient to exclude it from consideration. To be clear, I'm a doubter; I no longer find the Christian explanation worthy of belief. But I am leery of dismissing too easily the spiritual. I gather you would reject as meaningless a definition that said the spiritual is that which is not made of elementary particles and thus cannot be measured scientifically ...
gmsherry1953 1 year ago
@gmsherry1953 (cont) You might say if we can't measure it and agree on it, how can we discuss it intelligently? And I might agree. But what if ... WHAT IF ... the spiritual created and sustains and rules the physical, and is the most important aspect of our existence and experience, and we reject it just because we can't weigh it or see it in a cloud chamber? I'm agnostic not by conviction but from despair -- no explanation for existence seems sufficient to me. I fear I'm missing something.
gmsherry1953 1 year ago
@gmsherry1953 These questions can be tough and emotionally draining as one puzzles through them. I vividly recall my own feelings of despair and frustration as I was working through many of them during my transition away from religious faith. All I can say to you is that I don't think "the spiritual" has any meaning beyond saying what it is not, i.e., not the physical. I've yet to see anyone make sense of it. IMHO, it doesn't admit of being made sense of. So claims such as "the spiritual"...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @gmsherry1953 ...created and sustains and rules the physical" truly make no sense to me. I don't know that such statements *ever* made sense to me, but when I was a believer I didn't give it a whole lot of thought.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH For argument's sake, I'll continue, and I'll start with consciousness, which as far as I know is a mystery to science. Is consciousness SIMPLY the sum of the chemical and electrical activity in your or my brain at any given moment, or do those create consciousness, without being consciousness itself? Is awareness more than purely physical? Love, fear, longing, anger may be CAUSED by chemicals, but are they more than JUST chemicals? Is consciousness evidence of spirit? Or an illusion?
gmsherry1953 1 year ago
Why are primary attributes needed to be known for there to be knowledge of an entity?
If you hear a loud 'bump!' in the night, and you sit up and wonder what made the noise, is your musing pointless just because you don't know the primary attributes of what made the noise?
WouldbeSage 1 year ago
@WouldbeSage You wouldn't even entertain a thought that the bump was cause by anything not physical, would you?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH No, a bump in the night is almost certainly physical. Now, if I observed something that seemed to defy the laws of nature, such as the dead rising, levitation, transmutation, etc., then I would allow for the possibility of forces beyond those found in my accostumed worldview.
WouldbeSage 1 year ago
@WouldbeSage "Now, if I observed something that seemed to defy the laws of nature, such as the dead rising, levitation, transmutation, etc., then I would allow for the possibility of forces beyond those found in my accostumed worldview."
Could they not be heretofore unknown aspects of the laws of nature or perhaps merely malfunctions in your perception?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
"Could they not be heretofore unknown aspects of the laws of nature..."
Of course they could! That is always worth investigating. If a strange event did occur, we should be open to any comprehensive explanation that the evidence and circumstances indicate.
"...or perhaps merely malfunctions in your perception?"
Also possible - although unlikely if others are witnessing or witnessed the same events, and can corroborate my report of what I perceived.
WouldbeSage 1 year ago
@WouldbeSage "...although unlikely if others are witnessing or witnessed the same events, and can corroborate my report of what I perceived."
Oh, check out the stories of, e.g., thousands and thousands of religious believers claiming to have witnessed the Sun spinning in Medjugorje (the site of alleged apparitions of the Virgin Mary).
In any case, my point is that it would be perfectly appropriate to investigate such things with the physical qua primary attribute.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
So here is the question I can't avoid, whenever I watch a video that says believers fail to define God. Whenever I watch these videos, it is never clarified what they WOULD accept, only what they wouldn't. No example is given of what a satisfactory ontological definition for something would be.
I'm an atheist, but I can't help but be bothered by this line of reasoning. You make a good point, but without illustrating what you *would* accept, it doesn't help much.
TransparentChocolate 1 year ago
@TransparentChocolate I would accept something coherent as opposed to the incoherent stuff theists offer. I'd also just accept the concession that everyone--theist or not--is agnostic on this.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Well, you don't have to worry about that from me, I fully admit agnosticism. :)
But what I meant is, an example. If one were to give an example of a consistent ontological definition, that would be very helpful.
I agree with your point, it's just that I struggle to think of what would qualify, not just with God, but with concepts in general. For instance, matter. I struggle to think of a coherent definition of matter based on what you rejected in the video.
TransparentChocolate 1 year ago
How can I give a definition when we have no way of detecting whatever it is that God is made of. The Bible doesn't say either other than he is in spirit form. The Bible does say that Jesus is his corporeal form. We're talking about a being that is far too large to try to understand in human terms.
MoreLoveJesus 1 year ago
@MoreLoveJesus
Your question is unreasonable, as unreasonable as me asking you to show me a primary attribute of an atom. Can you define what atoms are? And don't give me the mathematical model about "electrons clouds/shells" show me proof they exist. I want to see a picture, or a sound, something.
MoreLoveJesus 1 year ago
@MoreLoveJesus Look it up. Just recently, scientists have been able to take pictures of them under scanning tunneling microscope in google images.plus, the model works because chemistry works and has been able to make new elements. physicists fire single molecules at one another at the Large hadron collider- and have gotten some really cool results. the results might interest you.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
Prof, I've been using this 'all Theists are agnostics' argument for years now with some very interesting results. It usually takes a while for anyone to see that we are all agnostic about god(s) - agnosticism is the only honest position when dealing with god(s). Once an (a)theist sees that everyone is either an agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist the conversation has an interesting basis for jumping into further discussion, usually surrounding the nature and necessity of 'belief'.
Good vid!
vryc 1 year ago
@vryc Thanks very much.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I should have watched this like ever ago.
SuperBrobot 1 year ago
@SuperBrobot Well, I'm glad you watched it.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I always posited the question like this: if a wizard is a human with powers, what's Yahwe without his powers? We all know what we can't do, see him, understand him, test him, which say nothing about him. And you can't apply the terms omnipotent, omniscient etc. to him, because they contradict each other. And there are clear cases (also in the Bible) where Yahwe cannot do everything, like forgiving mankind without a blood sacrifice, fighting iron chariots and healing amputees.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense If God is an invisible, interdimensional/ outside of time and space, eternal, non-physical being, how could he have possibly made us in his image? It's the arrogant and deluded concept that we are like God, his chosen, favourite species, race, tribe, or prophet. We clearly are not. We are visible, physical, mortal primates.
Great music choice at the end, ProfMTH.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I love videos that go into great painstaking detail about the logical flaws of theists. Excellently done, very well done.
Here I was all tied up on the notion that there was no evidence for god, and that was the trump card to defeat any christian argument....but here you have gone a step further, and shown that the very concept itself is flawed. I see I have more to learn. Again, very well done. :)
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@seanthedonconsidine Thanks a lot. I'm glad you found the video useful and that it took things "a step further" for you.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
very well done, thanks
rickyPG 1 year ago
@rickyPG Thank you.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Hey, nice vids! Thanks! Glad I found them.
eulercircles 1 year ago
@eulercircles I'm glad you did, too. Thanks for the comment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I disagree with the premise that you have to define what you are looking for before you look for it.
For example, Think about woodpeckers.
Lets say that i live in a region with pine trees. I go to a new place, and pine trees in this area have holes in them. I'm familiar with the tree, but not the holes. Logically, it makes sense to look for a creature or event that has the secondary attribute of "It drills holes in trees", but i need no other knowlege of what I'm looking for.
ChechireYeti 1 year ago
@ChechireYeti In your search for what's causing the holes in the trees, would it even enter into your mind that the cause is something other than some aspect of the physical universe?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
best series.
billygundum 1 year ago
@billygundum I appreciate the comment. BTW, was this linked somewhere? It seems to be getting a lot of traffic all of a sudden. Thanks!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH It was in the side bar on AronRa's recent video
CrumblingCreeds 1 year ago
@CrumblingCreeds Ah! That explains it. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I think it was a recommended vid from AronRa's most recent.
HerbyIsGood 1 year ago
@HerbyIsGood Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comments are too long, so I'm sorry if I will repeat what anyone else has said.
I am an atheist (gnostic concerning the Abrahamic god) but would like to take a stab at your 'challenge'.
Before I do so I must point out that you video lacks a vital point, an example (or examples) of a primary attribute. You say this is the most important point yet you do not give any scope for what this attribute could be in a being.
bignastydragon 1 year ago
@bignastydragon cont...
Since no example of a primary attribute is given I must use my own best judgement.
A god is a being which exists only in dimensions beyond the 4 we interact with. This being has what humans would call a 'mind' and interacts with material present in 'our' 4 dimensions indirectly. The 'brain' of this being exists in more than 3 dimensions, which allows for more 'mind forming connections', giving the being much greater cognitive capacities than humans.
bignastydragon 1 year ago
@bignastydragon "A god is a being which exists only in dimensions beyond the 4 we interact with."
What does that mean?
"This being has what humans would call a 'mind'...."
Do you mean this "god" has a brain? If not, that what *do* you mean?
"The 'brain of this being exists in more than 3 dimensions...."
So it's a physical brain that this "god" has, correct? If so, we're getting somewhere. And what does it mean to say this brain "exists in more than 3 dimensions"?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Like I said, I'm atheist and am pulling this out of my ass.
You haven't given an example of a primary quality for me to go off of, without it I'm flailing about in the dark making stuff up which is more comprehensive than century old dogma.
Humans work well in our 4 dimensions, and the theist position is that 'god' is timeless and spaceless, and therefore must exist (to interact at all with the universe) in dimensions different to our 4.
bignastydragon 1 year ago
@bignastydragon I defined 'primary attribute' and I did give an example (matter). What you're up against here is not the lack of an example to work with, but rather the fact that the god concept is hopelessly incoherent.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I know that the god concept is hopelessly incoherent, I just wish to do a better job than believers at describing a possible god.
As for the primary example, I am very unhappy with that as an example. 'What is matter?' Is a question which comes to mind. I could simply state that the god is comprised of energy and force interactions which behave similar to what we see in our familiar 4 dimensions, but is present in the 'god dimensions'. Although most believers would not be happy with it
bignastydragon 1 year ago
@bignastydragon " I know that the god concept is hopelessly incoherent."
Then why are you going on as if the problem were something other than the fact that the concept is incoherent? In other words, it seems we agree, but you're acting as if we don't. I'm puzzled.
"I could simply state that the god is comprised of energy...."
Well, you could, but that would require you to say that this god is part of the physical universe and not the aphysical thing that believers wish to insist...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @bignastydragon ...that their god is--although, of course, in saying that, they are merely saying what their god is not, as opposed to what their god is. In other words, energy & force interactions are part of the physical universe. Believers insist that their god is not. Since they are the ones who contend that there's something other than the physical universe and what lives in it, it is incumbent upon them to coherently account for what that something else is--and they can't do it.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Don't be too puzzled, I only wish to see if I can provide a more coherent idea than the vast majority of believers.
My idea does not have to actually be coherent, just more so than those presented by believers.
To achieve this I must make concessions which the believer cannot. If the definition of the universe is everything, then the god must be part of the universe. This god can therefore not have 'begun' the universe, and must have formed later.
bignastydragon 1 year ago
@bignastydragon OK. I just don't see the point of the exercise you've proposed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I wish to see what I need to do to make the god concept coherent. It must be a compromise, it must be scientifically understandable and possible whilst keeping as much of ideals which believers need for this being to be 'worthy' of worship.
I think it is important to be able to come up with something like this if we are to discuss the topic with believers. We must be familiar with the thought process and pitfalls of thinking leading to a coherent idea of 'god'.
bignastydragon 1 year ago
@bignastydragon In your "quest" for God's coherence, I simply MUST point you to the Epicurean paradox (or Epicurus's riddle).
TheGoodColonel 1 year ago
How would you describe the difference between "non rational" and "irrational"?
TheAtheistSwede 1 year ago
@TheAtheistSwede In a nutshell, 'irrational' goes against reason while 'non-rational' doesn't appeal to reason at all.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Ok. yeah that's pretty much what I theorized. =)
TheAtheistSwede 1 year ago
Also, the knowledge/definition of a thing is ALWAYS incomplete. So, for example, would you deny the ontological parsing of a primitive man who defined a star for you, by showing you a tiny white dot in the night sky and saying "that's a star?" He doesn't know it's fundamentally the same thing as the sun, and that it makes light by nuclear fusion. Would you prohibit him from talking about "stars." Would you deny his assertion that "stars exist?"
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 The primary atribute would be along the lines of a "small white dot in the night sky". The primative man does not assert that a luminous ball of plasma exists, he asserts that a small white dot exists in the night sky. I would not prohibit him from talking about this dot.
Which begs the question, is it sufficient to have a incorrect definition so long as it is coherent and meets ProfMTH's primary/secondary attribute criteria?
xxzmikezxx 1 year ago
@xxzmikezxx : I think worries about incorrectness are irrelevant. We still don't know FULLY what ANYTHING is, we simply list the attributes we know (or propose). As I commented in part 1, I don't understand why this "god" definition is unsatisfactory: Entity which created the universe to fulfill its (unknown) purpose, and which may occasionally communicate with some elements of its creation in order to further its purposes. I'm simply and truly puzzled by Prof's focus on this "definition" prob
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 "Would you deny his assertion that 'stars exist?'"
As I say repeatedly in this video and the two that came before it, I am not discussing existence here.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH : But I wasn't offering the star as something with "evidence." I offered it as something with a definition: a white dot in the night sky. Truly, I just don't get your point in these videos. I haven't had a problem with "definitions." In my experience, people don't have difficulty defining their concepts. It seems a small issue. What's the problem with the definition I offered recently in part 1 of this vid? Maybe we're at cross purposes regarding what "definition" means?
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 "Truly, I just don't get your point in these videos."
I know. And you and I have gone over it before and you still don't get the point. Therefore I don't see any reason to go for another round of your asking me the same questions and my giving you the same answers. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH : Well come on. I really don't think you're trying (and someone else has just commented that you're not telling us what a primary attribute IS). I would settle for a response in part 1 to the definition I offer (and which seems to me to be directly implied by what believers have to say). What is unsatisfactory with my "definition of god?" (other than that one will find there is no evidence of such a thing)
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1 Stars as viewed from Earth have a few undeniable and universally recognizable attributes that we can all agree on no matter what our level of knowledge is. I think ProfMTH's point is that the attributes theists use to describe their god(s) are generally too nebulous to have a universally accepted meaning, and that when pressed to give more precise explanations they generally resort to "we can't know" or similar. The point is not that they shouldn't be allowed to discuss god.
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexxt : Perhaps. I've certainly never asked believers for their definitions (I suppose I've just assumed they had them). I assume I've spoken for them with the definition I've papered in several comments here: Entity which created the universe to fulfill its (unknown) purpose, and which may occasionally communicate with some elements of its creation in order to further its purposes.
Is that definition unusable ontologically (ignoring that there's no actual evidence of such a thing)?
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1
The issue isn't whether a definition could be made, it's that most theists don't have one.
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexxt : OK. So are you saying that the definition I gave is....contrary to what believers have in mind when they speak of god? I mean, is it really a mystery? Believers think "god" created everything, with some purpose in mind, and wants/requires some kind of actions/responses/"faith" from people as part of the purpose it had in mind. To me it's sort of obvious that's how people tacitly "define" the god they worship.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1
Your definition focuses on what god does or has done, not what god is. It's inadequate as description for any specific god.
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexxt : Well....by that criterion I suppose you would have to say that gravity doesn't exist, since we know it only by what it "does." I think you and the Prof are playing some sort of strange semantics game, in which certain arbitrary attributes have to be defined in order to say something "exists." Your (not well explained) criteria would seem to present substantial problems for science, for example (I'm a scientist, btw). more....
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@GetMeThere1
I think what the Prof is getting at is that you have to at least have some meaningful knowledge about the thing you say you believe in to be able to call it a belief. For example, I had a discussion with a guy who said he believed God had "spoken the universe into existence". That's very poetic, but it doesn't mean anything. So my understanding of the issue is that if you can't describe what you believe in in anything but the most nebulous terms you can't really call it a belief.
Griexxt 1 year ago
@Griexxt : So, in science, definitions are not primary, EXISTENCE is primary. IOW, you may define anything in any manner you please--it doesn't matter, because your phenomenon or process is of no interest until you can DEMONSTRATE that which you have defined. There is no criteria for "definitions," as long as that which is defined can be demonstrated.
Which is why I don't really get the point of the vid--WHATEVER the definition, where's the DEMONSTRATION!!??
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
"god is the greatest being that can exist" meet the god hes name is bluewhale. lol i have wasted my time with religius people. they dont even know what is what they are beliving.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
i think it is within a theist advantage to never answer the "what is god" question-- that way they can say whatever they want-- god is whatever they want him to be. to positively and coherently answer the question would put the believer in a box-- since " god does not change." this would stop the evolution of the concept of god as we have seen through out history.
pbhs07 1 year ago
If we want to give an example of ontology, a chair would be a bad example, for a chair is merely a human concept. They are all composed of different materials and what is considered a chair is only done so because someone decides to. In fact, the best example of ontology that doesn't hit any grey areas - that is objective - I would give would be that of a hydrogen atom: a structure composed of one proton and one electron, about 2.4 angstroms in diameter and weighing 1.007 u. Now, what is God?
Daruqe 1 year ago
Idk, it would seem difficult to identify anything using your logic. In your conversation about the chair, yes we know its something we sit on, but does it satisfy your logical criteria of what it is? I answered its function but not what it is, but then again how does your reasoning prove what anything IS? Prove to me what a chair is or use another example, please.
I'm throwing this up in the air just to hear your response...
God IS infinite/everything, disprove that with your "theorem" plz
69aznboi 1 year ago
Continued2: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying knowing what god is is sufficient for knowing he exists. I know what a unicorn is, but also know one doesn't exist. Mastery of a term is sufficient for knowing what something is. Kids know what a lot of things are, but are unable to give you anything close to a satisfactory definition for anything. Ask a kid what grass or a house is (or a chair for that matter).
wizardlyfriend 1 year ago
Continued: Even if you think there's something wrong with those examples, let's consider the chair that Lincoln is sitting on at the Lincoln memorial. This is clearly a chair, but was not built for the express purpose of being sat on. Maybe you're more clever than me, and can think of one, but I think you'll run into similar problems, and let's not forget, we're only talking about chairs here. We can shift to something more abstract and run into more problems.
wizardlyfriend 1 year ago
Because any definition of a chair that I am capable of giving doesn't tell you what a chair is, only some features of chairs. Here's a few examples:
A chair is something you sit on: you can sit on rocks
...something man made you sit on: we frequently sit on banks of fountains, curbs, etc.
...something man made you sit on, that is made for the express purpose of being sat on: a toilet is not a chair, neither is a bench, and likewise for a bed.
wizardlyfriend 1 year ago
Of course I know what I chair is, that's my point. But I can't define what one is. Give me a definition of a chair, I think you'll find it's harder than you think. Nonetheless, I don't doubt that you could (for example) tell the difference between a rock and a chair, or a couch and a chair, or any number other things that are functionally similar to chairs, but yet we know are not chairs.
wizardlyfriend 1 year ago
@wizardlyfriend "Of course I know what I chair is, that's my point. But I can't define what one is."
If you can't define it, then how do you know what it is?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I can't define what a chair IS, but I know I'm sitting on one.
wizardlyfriend 1 year ago
@wizardlyfriend You truly don't know what a chair is?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Although I agree w/most of your viewpoints, I consider myself a Staunch Agnostic. I firmly believe that it's impossible to know either way. What I like about Agnosticism is that it's based on knowledge & evidence & leaves the realm of possibilities open. Reality could be a simulation for aliens or our other selves in parallel worlds. Reincarnation is possible. I think we'll have a better idea of "what god could be" or "what reality is" after they've studied the LHC results at CERN.
UnReALVeNoM 1 year ago
@UnReALVeNoM
Atheism is not the dogma that God doesn't exist. It is simply the refusal to believe in theism. Furthermore, as ProfMTH has claimed in the video, agnosticism is not exclusive from theism and atheism. One can be both agnostic and an atheist.
Furthermore, hard agnosticism (the belief that the existence of God is unknowable) is as irrational as theism itself. Where's the evidence for that?
FluidwithinStrife 1 year ago
@FluidwithinStrife The idea is that there is no true evidence to either prove or disprove the existence of god. So what's your point? It's a belief concerning the lack of evidence. Yes one can comfortably straddle both beliefs, but that's because they're probly too afraid to give an honest opinion on the matter. Or they simply don't know what to think, or don't wanna think about it.
UnReALVeNoM 1 year ago
Good vids. George's book is one of my all time favorites. I read it several times. Thank you.
DeaconVerter 1 year ago
@DeaconVerter Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
How would you for instance respond to the hypothetical objection that "matter is not spirit, therefore matter is a negative attribute"
asdaarg 1 year ago
Note, I'm not saying that you can't say that P is Q, in your particular sense of "is", but I would like to have a clear enough definition of the term, if it is the case, as you seem to suggest that is tells us something more of the subject P than the predicate Q does.
asdaarg 1 year ago
I have two questions. 1. What makes an attribute primary? 2 What makes an attribute positive?
asdaarg 1 year ago
@asdaarg Both are answered in the video series.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Ok, I'm still not sure about the second question though. The what something is as opposed to what something isn't, isn't too clear, but you later say that "it seems to have cognitive content" which seems to be the only indication of something that can't be turned around and asked the other way. So does positive attribute actually mean "has cognitive content"?
asdaarg 1 year ago
@asdaarg Well, yes, but that's not all. Think of the examples I gave in the video of attributes believers often give for the god concept, e.g., immaterial, supernatural, spirit, aphysical. All of those are references to what the god is NOT, as opposed to what the god is. They tell us nothing about what the god is, but only what the god is not, e.g, not material, not natural, not physical. They're negative attributes. Positive attributes point to what something is.
ProfMTH 1 year ago