Just from listening to this and the past video of you saying you aren't atheist, is it good from my speculation that "not choosing" is the idea? You are given a binary option "yes" and "no" but maybe we don't have to say either? I see Synchronomyst saying non-cognitivist which I am assuming is what I am describing. To me, yes, I think that it's a trap. It seems like a puzzle that wasn't built right. A textbook problem with a misprint you'll never find out. Could be our design flaw.
God's particular ontology is irrelevant. It all hinges on the burden of proof (BOP) which is also why I'm fine being called an atheist. You see, it is logically impossible to reject a claim of existence that hasn't been made 1st. Who cares how lacking a theist's presented ontology may be. As a-theists, our rejection is ALWAYS contingent on whatever claim they DO make. They ALWAYS have the BOP. They can't prove ANY version of their ontology for god so, incoherent or not, it just doesn't matter.
We get it, you've stumbled upon ignosticism, now please start rationalizing the mountain of false beliefs and concepts you've blindly accepted to form the character we have been presented with here.
Wow I've sorta been thinking about this too, but I could never put into words the way you have. It's true that the moment you can give a clear description of god he isn't god anymore.
What we just end up with really is the same as can be inferred whenever observing god from an outsiders perspective. It simply makes no sense whatsoever and as you well say, it relies on this nonsense to sustain itself, which is indeed, hilarious.
Nice video. Interestingly I've had lately more and more similar feeling that a god concept is kind of like a black hole in mind as it can effectively suck in all reason without giving any out.
Brilliant!! I had given up the label atheist now with a while back, but my explanations so far have been rather weak. Yours though have been very good, keep up the good work. :)
This is one of those videos that makes me think I still have a lot to learn about. Obviously, there are ideas out there that I still haven't come across, even briefly.
I came back to this video. Do you tell people you're an atheist when posed with the question out on the street? Do you go into this long train of thought? Do you paraphrase it?
Does it bother you if/when you have to go by the title "atheist".
I am an ignostic/theological noncognitivist as well. Personally, I do not object to the labels atheist or agnostic. And I AM against religion and superstition too.
You're right. If you do not have aconcept that corresponds to the term "god" (because no one can define it coherently for you) then you are without god - which is what atheist means.
There is a reason Socratic method begins with definition of terms. If you can't define your concepts, you can't prove that they refer to anything that actually exists.
I think the trend has been to make the God concept more and more nebulous BECAUSE science is shedding more measurements and light on the reality around us.
God is retreating into whatever gaps are left, and there less available now as we discover more and more.
It goes back to the riddle of Epicures. Those vague attributes are alone enough to make God seem foolish. Forget the more basic ontological coherency.
I know God is more than what people and physics have defined so far by my personal experiences and scientific studies, you can only believe what I am saying or not. (That is your choice). Or you can do the science to understand it.
Ok, panentheism and pantheism are close but still incorrect, you cannot have the universe without God, but you can have God without the universe.
The "universe" is physically finite as defined by all theories except for one, but it is infinite in God.
No, God is more than what has been defined by people and physics at this time. God is more than the universe, the definition of what the universe is, is incorrect due to the limited framing of what the "universe" actually is. (Einstein was correct up to the limits of his understanding of the universe, his framework was limited due to the belief the universe is finite.)
The only reason the label 'atheist' is used at all because like 90% of the world believes in a god. As far as im concerned, its just saying im not one of them.
You are stating that the reason we cannot begin to discuss God is because there is no way of defining God. However, this is not exactly true. When I ask who a person in history is I am told of what he or she did, said, and sometimes physical attributes. It is a give-in that the person is human, usually, unless in being first told of the entity it was not mentioned that it was an animal, organization, or town. However, with God we have records of what He has said and done... continued...
We do not know what He is because we have not been told, and have had little chance to observe what He has said is Him directly. We know certain extents of His abilities. He claimed Himself as the one who made all that we see. Therefore, since most of what we know is what we see, we know Him to be able to make and affect such without limit (or known limit). We cannot say exactly what He is, but we can infer what He is not. That is why you see it the way you do. continued...
We know of His location as an entity, we know He sees at least everything that He made at all times, because that is what His words and actions show. Since He claims creation of all that we know, all that we know, to the smallest detail, He sees. But again, these are attributes, which you did not want. You want to know what He is, and probably why I call Him a He. I can answer that second one, but as for the first, we don't know. He has appeared many times as human-like. continued...
However, He is not human, as He claims to have made humans. He said we were made in His image, sort of like you would form a statue. It would contain certain attributes of the original, but not the same basic structure. In the same way, we were made. In order to know what He is without seeing Him, you would have to study His "statue" (humans). You would then have to take what you know of Him and place that over our knowledge of humans in an overriding/complementary manner. continued...
However, just as many years ago we lacked cellular and atomic understanding of what a human is, we still lack understanding of what makes up God. But we can refer to the entity that has spoken and acted in His own manner many times before, regardless of how much we know of what or where He is, just like we can refer to and discuss the voice we heard over the telephone, regardless of what the speaker of it looked like, or whether it was a human, a parrot, or a computer. We refer by known actions.
You might find this interesting. Neuroscience has found that when believers think about god the same part of the brain lights up that lights up when they think of their friends or family members. Believers give god (in their mind) the same primary characteristic they give people.
Source: Vilayanur S. Ramachandran (The Beyond Belief conference thesciencenetwork . c o m)
WTF is the god "meme" are you trying to say that if people aren't discussing it on the internet then it is less valid? Just because hindus aren't assholes like christian creationists, trying to spread they're religion on the internet to young kids, doesn't make their gods any less valid than the god of isreal which I'm guessing is the god you are talking about. You shouldn't reject other ideas just because they aren't as popular as others, unless your just fishing for pointless debates for fun:)
"are you trying to say that if people aren't discussing it on the internet then it is less valid?"
Where the fuck did you get that idea from? Do you know what a meme is?
"You shouldn't reject other ideas just because they aren't as popular as others"
This is not a discussion about "popularity". At all. Not even remotely. Watch the first video in this series so you'll at least have an understanding of context. Or go away.
well you are right my understanding of what a meme is was not correct. Still you said in the video god's like vishnu aren't part of the current god meme everyone is talking about so they are a non issue. Explain to me how that is not a disscussion about popularity. You just rejected an entire religion and called it a non issue because people aren't talking about it as much as the religions of israel.
well you were presenting this as a disscussion about theism and athiesm. That's what I got from the first video at least, considering it's called "I am no longer an athiest" If you are just talking about christianity and islam and whatever other religions are in this particular school of apologetics than why are you even bringing up athiesm? it is a concept about the rejection or disbelief of theism not just one particular god.
What do I think? I think you've seen the light haha. It's truly an astonishing fact that god in all his "glory" is proudly reduced to the ashes of meaninglessness by his defenders.
The thing is though, like you have stated before (implicitly at least), you end up at the default position.
Here's my god ontology: God is a balloon that's just out of reach as you run to try and catch it. It will take you allllllll around the world, back to the balloon vendor and when you're almost there... ready to grasp reality once again, all the balloons of different colors and shapes block your view.
I think that possibly when the bible was being witten, someone may have made the mistake. Maybe you can throw away a portion of information, that could make God Self-explanitory. But, that isn't the topic. I really can't throw out anything that hasn't been covered in this video, other then the fact that it would make more sense if God is non-material, or maybe even inbeing. But that does not work with the description of God anyway, so any way you look at it does not make complete sense.
Perhaps it was why the Buddha was silent about the existence of God and why many schools of philosophical thought arose in ancient India questioning the very existence of God as a central controlling universal principle.
The problem is that the human mind which is accustomed to the language of the words and symbols cannot grasp the Absolute Truth that cannot really be compared to anything else.
It is beyond all. There the mind does not go, nor the senses, nor our understanding. It is always infront of the senses and intelligence. It is only through personal experience perhaps one may grasp a little about It. But even about this we are not sure.
It is doubtful whether any one can really experience something which does not exist or which is simply non-existence or non-Being and come back to us and describe it to us in the normal planes of thought.
First I must say I agree with you, you can't define something that is beyond understanding. One can't define the source of everything aka god/higher being as its beyond human comprehension.
In the manifest state we believe there are several planes of consciousness, dimensions, time frames, worlds or planes of existence and realities. There is the material universe that is known to the senses and the transcendental universe known only to the beings of the highest planes.
A coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition cannot be falsified, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
The lack of an ontology is a defense mechanism for believers. As you state, god once did have an ontology - a bearded man in the sky. But since, like Zeus, a unicorn or a teapot orbiting between Earth and Venus, that ontology is easily refuted, disproved or shown to be incredibly unlikely, believers have resorted fantastical twists of logic in order to justify their beliefs.
They disparately cling to superstition because they are afraid of the alternative - nothing.
Typically, it's used as a conversational shortcut; when someone asks me my religion, instead of saying "Well, Im a weak atheist. That is to say Im an atheist/agnostic because strong atheism makes an absolutist assertion. Further the lack of ontological description of God deprives me of the ability if expressing an opinion on the subject as we have not agreed on what 'it' is."
One point of contention though. You mention in this video that theologians would not agree with someones description of God as a bearded man in the sky. Why does this matter? It shouldnt even matter if everyone agrees what god is. If I can tell you that God is a old man with a white beard who lives outside of our universe, created everything, knows everything, and can do anything, this is certainly enough to choose whether or not there is evidence present to support this claim.
What follows is, I have some descriptions of a God which provide me with an ontology which is unsupported by evidence. As such, I consider myself an atheist of those God's which have met the requisite ontological description and am unable to comment on those that dont.
Im unable to see how this does not make you an atheist. Surely, some persons's view of the Abrahamic god maybe so obscure that you could say 'I neither believe or disbelieve in your description of the Abrahamic god'.
In that case, though, I reject the label of "atheist" for the same reason I reject "aunicornist". Neither is particularly useful as a descriptor. You're welcome to call me one on those grounds, if you like, though I don't suppose you'd care enough to.
If the christian god (to focus on one example) was claimed to be nothing more specific than that which answers prayers, then it could be as straightforward as you just mentioned.
It's more complicated though because of the extra things that theists say about God. By saying 'i don't believe God exists' (on the basis of unanswered prayers) you're giving theists a free ride, relieving them of the burden of providing a coherent definition of God, which has to be their first step.
Theists HAVE definitions of 'god'; not necessarily particularly reasonable or choerent ones, but they have them. You have to take them at their word before you gave anything to argue against, you have to take their definitions at face value before you can refute it.
If their definitions are nonsense, so much the better; they're more easily refuted. But they aren't describing NOTHING, even if they're describing something FICTIONAL.
"you have to take their definitions at face value before you can refute it."
No I don't, and I can't. I have not gotten far enough down the line of discourse to offer a refutation of the "god" concept because it does not exist as a concept. An incoherent idea cannot be refuted any more than a dead person can be killed. There is nothing to discuss. Nothing to address. Nothing to formulate any semblance of a counter-argument on.
"Your concept is too incoherent to agree to, therefore I reject it until you refine it enough to properly discuss. Until such time as you do, I am an a-conceptist (in this case, an atheist)."
Addressing the coherency of a concept and the actual existence of the same concept are two different things. Which are you referring to?
An atheist has to address the existence of "god" as a concept in order to take a position as to its existence in the first place. That is several orders of magnitude too far down the line of discourse for me to be comfortable with the label.
Hardly. One needn't have a complete and accurate definition of something to accept or reject it. We don't have a coherent concept of consciousness and self as it relates to biology, yet we accept its existence; we needn't have a complete description of god's being to be able to reject the other parts of the concept.
Theists make claims about what god can do and what god has done; we have only to reject THOSE to be an atheist, to look at what they assert and say, "No god required".
No, you really don't; to reject something, all you have to do is decide it is merit-free...which you clearly HAVE.
And anyway, I think that the definition IS fairly coherent; I get what they're trying to say, even if I disagree with it.
I think what you're dealing with, here, is a failure of the imagination; I can picture a disembodied intelligence with magical powers, even if I think such a thing is pure fiction. Why can't you?
No, it isn't. It's a contradiction ONLY IF science and nature are all that exist.
While I, too, believe that only science and nature are real, I can at least picture and understand a spiritual realm; I love science fiction and fantasy, novels and movies and video games, and these concepts come up ALL THE TIME. Maybe that's why I can picture a reality outside of science.
IF such a realm exists, a disembodied intelligence could ALSO exist. There is only a contradiction if magic is false. (cont)
Now, I believe magic IS false, and that's why I reject god, but as a fictional concept, it's something I can picture. A personality independent of matter is something I could never EXPLAIN in terms of its origin or functionality, but I certainly CAN conceive of what such a thing's existence might be like for those experiencing interaction with it.
The concept is something that I can imagine, but reject due to lack of evidence; that you can't even IMAGINE it seems a failure of the imagination.
"I love science fiction and fantasy, novels and movies and video games, and these concepts come up ALL THE TIME."
If you examine them in depth, though, you will find they don't make sense EXCEPT when you anthropomorphise them to some degree, thereby defeating their purpose. I can stand to not do so when I watch "Star Wars" or "The Exorcist". Discussions about "god" are another thing entire.
Like I keep trying to tell you, I get it, you don't; it's a failure of imagination on your part because you cannot accept AS A CONCEPT anything that is not part of the material world, even if only to examine and reject the notion.
"you cannot accept AS A CONCEPT anything that is not part of the material world"
Wrong. I am not, and cannot, reject the "immaterial" a priori. If you tell me there is "something else" other than nature, the onus is yours to provide for WHAT THAT IS. If you can't, you don't get to refer to it as if it were a coherent concept.
"We don't have a coherent concept of consciousness... yet we accept its existence"
Because it's axiomatic to our having this conversation, or any conversation, for that matter. Furthermore, as consciousness clearly occurs as a part of nature, it has its primary attribute accounted for. It's a very broad one, but it's sufficient for being able to refer to it as a coherent concept.
"God" not only lacks a clear or specific primary attribute, it lacks ANY. This is why your analogy fails.
God HAS a primary attribute according to his/her/its/their proponents, and it's just as broad as that of consciousness, it's just not one that you accept. In fact, it's the SAME as consciousness, really, despite not occurring in nature.
I say again, without intention to insult, that I think it's a failure of imagination on your part. I understand what they're getting at, even if you don't; I still reject it, but I GET it.
"God HAS a primary attribute according to his/her/its/their proponents"
No it doesn't. It's only ever in the negative - as in "immaterial", "supernatural" etc. - or as an equivocation which only begs the same question - as in "spirit".
And those are limits of language, not of concepts; your premise is faulty because you insist that language dictates something's nature rather than language DESCRIBING something's nature. The fact that humanity and the world are material is what the language was designed to describe in the first place, but the fact that anything outside the material world is hard to explain in language DOESN'T invalidate the concept.
Well, I find this discourse intelligible, I understand what they're trying to get at. The fact that you DON'T is something I find quite perplexing.
It's that simple; ontologically speaking, I see what they're getting at, at least well enough to reject it.
Again, I say, this is a failure of imagination on your part, your worldview is too narrow to accommodate non-material concepts EVEN AS FICTION or speculation.
"This statement clarifies that you don't a have a clue what my worldview is."
Or that I think it's a load of shit. *rolls eyes*
The reality of material or immaterial is irrelevant anyway; theism can be rejected on other grounds since theism makes other claims that have everything to do with the material world.
No, my statement was correct. Your claim that deny the "immaterial" a priori does not comport with reality, therefor, you do not understand my worldview.
That doesn't make ANY sense, and not just because of your mangled grammar; I never said that at all.
Frankly, the more you use the term "a priori," the more I'm convinced that you're entirely too hung up on it, and too hung up on defining what god IS instead of what god has DONE. Theists make plenty of falsifiable claims about what their immaterial father figure has done, actions he/she/it/they have taken which are false, and that's enough to reject theism and be an atheist.
"your worldview is too narrow to accommodate non-material concepts"
"Theists make plenty of falsifiable claims about what their immaterial father figure has done"
I know that. I find it very easy to refute the proposed SECONDARY and RELATIONAL attributes of "god". That's not what this discussion is about. Go somewhere else if you want to address that topic.
God is made of 'sceublar'. It's an ethereal substance formed of spiritual energy which exists on the ethereal plane of existence that can maintain intelligent consciousness.
Happy now? We have god's primary attribute: sceublar. It can't be seen, it can't be touched, but doggonit, it can be a magical person.
Can you reject it NOW? Huh? Huh? Can you? *rolls eyes*
No. All you've done is pushed the same problem back one step by erroneously introducing another vacuous non-concept into the mix. Now I will ask you what the positive ontology of an "ethereal substance" is. Back to Square One.
And THIS is why I say that there is no answer that will satisfy you. Ever. Because you can't even discuss the matter AS A HYPOTHETICAL.
Let me ask you: what is a ghost? Never mind if ghosts are REAL, surely you've encountered ghosts in fiction...are you unable to understand what they are within the framework of the story, or do you get it?
Because understanding the basis for god is essentially the same as understanding the basis for ghosts, even if you insist they're both fictional.
"Ghost" suffers the same problem. In order to form an image in my mind (that is, after all, the point of fiction), it needs to be anthropomorphized in some sense, either as a glowing light or the stereotypical guy in a white sheet or what have you.
You can say they're internally contradictory all you like, but I have yet to see you SHOW it.
You think you have, I know that; you haven't. All you keep saying is, "Positive ontology! I need a positive ontology!", but not having one doesn't make something internally contradictory, it just means that English doesn't have the words yet, or that what's being described has been inadequately experienced, or both. But that's no contradiction, it's just a dearth of positive information!
"You can say they're internally contradictory all you like, but I have yet to see you SHOW it."
-Using entity language to refer to a concept with no primary attribute is internally contradictory, as it is not clear in what sense the proposed entity can be referred to as such
-Naming secondary or relational characteristics that are not parsimonious with "immaterial", "supernatural" etc. is internally contradictory
"Using entity language to refer to a concept with no primary attribute is internally contradictory, as it is not clear in what sense the proposed entity can be referred to as such"
No, it isn't internally contradictory, it's just INCOMPLETE. That's a huge difference.
"Naming secondary or relational characteristics that are not parsimonious with "immaterial", "supernatural" etc. is internally contradictory"
"Referring to "god" as an entity without providing the basis to do so is internally contradictory."
...which breaks down to nothing more than, "Prove it!". And while that's also MY position against theists, the difference is that I can understand, imagine, and entertain the notion of god as an entity WITHOUT having to know how it works, what it's made of, and where it lives.
No, it doesn't...except possibly to you. Again, this is the failure of your imagination; the imperfection is yours.
I, and many others, find it coherent. In my case, coherent enough to say that I don't buy it for a second, but still...I understand it.
And, no, I can't explain it to you. Because of your inability to step outside your narrow worldview to consider concepts that are, frankly, over your head.
In doing this though, the proposed nature of a "ghost" has been violated, since, being of the "spirit" world, they aren't supposed to be anthropomorphised. Therefor, the image in my mind can not actually be accurately described as a "ghost".
I am, of course, able to ignore this fact in the interest of entertainment.
Your problem is one of LANGUAGE, not one of CONCEPT, and THAT'S why it's a problem. Your entire argument boils down to, "If there's not a words for it, it cannot be discussed." And that's eight flavors of bullshit, and you should know it.
So what? It's the same for nature; I point to my analogy with the material that makes up quarks. There will ALWAYS be an infinite regression back to some undefinable thing, substance, nature, whatever. Always...it never ends.
I could just as easily ask YOU, "What is the ontology of nature?" See the problem? You're essentially arguing the case for 'irreducible complexity'.
"It's the same for nature; I point to my analogy with the material that makes up quarks"
It's problematic, or course, but it's not the same. Far from it.
In one case, you replace one coherent substance with another, which allows for the process of emergentism. In the other, you replace one vacuous non-concept with another, which allows for jack shit.
See, this is where the failure of imagination is: it's NOT a non-concept; a concept is EXACTLY WHAT IT IS!
It's a hypothetical, it's an inferred concept, much like dark matter. Nobody has ever studied dark matter, yet they believe it is there because it is inferred by its interactions with the things around it. And it's exactly the same with god: something inferred, not positively identified and directly studied.
So explain to me EXACTLY how that is a "non-concept". I just conceptualized it!
Again, this is a failure of imagination on your part. Are you SERIOUSLY saying that you can't imagine what is MEANT by god as a non-material entity with magic powers in order to consider THAT as a concept? Really? Because that's quite frankly DAFT.
Yes, I know what a universe of discourse is, just as I know that THAT is your artificial limit.
Hell, your whole argument boils down to, "There isn't a word for it, therefore it can't be discussed, therefore it doesn't exist." And I know you'll dispute the "therefore it doesn't exist" part, but that's what you've unwittingly done.
But you're wrong; god can be described, even if only in negatives, and a concept CAN be formed; you've just artificially limited yourself to a universe of discourse
"Are you SERIOUSLY saying that you can't imagine what is MEANT by god"
How can I imagine what is meant by "god"? What if I'm wrong? What if what I'm imagining isn't what the theist is attempting to refer to? This is why I ask for specifics.
But you're asking for specifics that you're NEVER GOING TO GET.
Even if the concept you have is wrong in particulars, it can be right in general, and that's really all that's required to reject the theist stance and take up the mantle of atheist.
It's like saying, "Why don't you like Star Trek? Don't you think phasers are cool?" Doesn't matter; I don't care for the universe it's set it, therefore I'm not a fan.
Same deal here; the god concept in general stinks, so I'm an atheist. Badabing.
Not really, no. This is where I part ways with George Smith/Michael Martin/Francois Trembley, who use non-cognitivism as a basis for gnostic atheism. I still think the term itself lends too much credence to "god" as a concept, when this is what non-cognitivism sets to disprove.
I can very easily disbelieve in secondary and relational attributes. If I have a friend, for example, who tells me they can fly, I will disbelieve in that attribute on the grounds of its physical impossibility. I can apply the same scrutiny to certain attributes of "god".
I CANNOT, however, address the entity of "god" itself in the same way, because it lacks a primary attribute.
I genuinely don't believe that there is anything you would ever accept as a primary attribute that would ALSO still retain the intended concept of those making the assertion.
While I personally don't believe there's anything outside the physical realm, no spiritual realm at all, I'm willing to at least hear theist arguments against that position. But to HEAR them, I have to be willing to at least entertain ideas that go outside what I believe in first.
"I genuinely don't believe that there is anything you would ever accept as a primary attribute that would ALSO still retain the intended concept of those making the assertion."
"What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it."
And yet, rejecting THAT--the concept that god cannot be known and anything known is not god--MAKES YOU AN ATHEIST.
That's my point; to be an atheist, all you have to do is tell a theist they're full of shit. Understanding their concept or having it put in terms you'll accept isn't necessary; all that's necessary to be an atheist is non-acceptance.
You claim not to be an atheist, but a rose by any other name...
I have answers...but you'll just throw that "no ontology" bullshit around again...and it IS bullshit. I've TRIED to explain it to you already, multiple times, but you seem to keep ignoring the relevant bits, so what's the point?
Hell, it's getting to the point where I almost have to go on a pro-theism rant, JUST to explain to you what it is that I reject as an atheist! Sheesh! *rolls eyes*
I DON'T deny that god can be referred to as an entity. And even if it CAN'T, neither can gravity; both are immaterial forces according to those who describe them.
You criteria by which god can be described is artificially limited, and therefore artificially limiting your thought, your ability to even DISCUSS the issue.
Wrong. I deny the theist's claim of god's existence in the first place, but NOT their description of god. heir description makes perfect sense...as fiction. But their claims of existence are not borne out by reality.
Entity language is IRRELEVANT; the descriptions are similar: invisible, immaterial, etc.; that one is alleged to be conscious and the other is not has nothing to do with this.
"You criteria by which god can be described is artificially limited"
No, it's dictated (not "limited") by the inescapable nature of discourse.
Can you name for me another system of discourse I might operate under other than my own, which dictates that entities require primary attributes? Please do not commit the fallacy of stealing the concept when you provide your answer.
Bollocks; you're limiting yourself quite artificially. Your so-called "nature of discourse" and your insistence on "primary attributes" is, at best, a smokescreen to avoid having to consider a reality which doesn't conform to your worldview. *rolls eyes*
Then you should be able to answer my question very easily. What other system of discourse can I operate under other than the one I am bound to? Please do not commit the fallacy of stealing the concept when you provide your answer.
"I have answers...but you'll just throw that "no ontology" bullshit around again...and it IS bullshit."
That's an internal contradiction. Calling the rudiments of intelligible discourse "bullshit" is a statement itself dependent on the rudiments of intelligible discourse, thereby committing the fallacy of the stolen concept.
The fact that you don't understand what this means IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM.
Like I've been saying, it's a failure of the imagination on your part. Expand your mind or you'll NEVER understand. There's simply no way I can explain this to you because you've walled off your mind from considering certain concepts.
No, you don't actually. You've made positive statements as to what comprises my worldview which are not true and which I have concisely pointed out to you.
You haven't concisely pointed out ANYTHING; your objections to my reiteration of your position is inevitably nonsensical...either that, or it's RIDICULOUS, and I'm simply rejecting what you mean because I can't conceive of anyone actually attempting to hold such a position.
You position seems to be, "They can't define it to my satisfaction, so I won't consider the notion AT ALL," but defining anything to your satisfaction seems limited by your worldview, to what you'll accept; artificial limit.
Bollocks; here's your own statement that shows EXACTLY what your position is on non-material concepts:
"Your analogies fail. Quarks and dark matter both have a universe of discourse - nature - under which to operate."
Nature is comprised ENTIRELY of matter; you won't consider anything outside of the natural or material world...or if you WILL, you've given ZERO evidence to that effect, and have rejected out of hand any discussion of non-material concepts.
SHOW ME that it's a strawman. Show me ANYTHING that is immaterial which you are willing to consider, WITH OR WITHOUT your completely unreasonable insistence on positive ontology.
Your entire argument rejects placeholders for things not yet fully understood, and that's where the artificial limit is. But again, I point to dark matter: dark matter is only INFERRED, yet you're willing to consider it, but you WON'T consider anything outside your narrow worldview of nature, even as FICTION.
You say "immaterial" is a negative ontology, and you won't consider those, which is EXACTLY what I accused you of. You say you'll only consider anything with a positive ontology, which is the artificial limit on your thinking, which is exactly what I've been saying all along.
There's no strawman; this is the position you've taken. Your position is, "Stop telling me what it isn't and tell me what it IS," and then you won't accept what you're told it is.
Nothing of substance to say, but I love the eightfoodmanchild. One of my heroes.
shunyotube 9 months ago
Just from listening to this and the past video of you saying you aren't atheist, is it good from my speculation that "not choosing" is the idea? You are given a binary option "yes" and "no" but maybe we don't have to say either? I see Synchronomyst saying non-cognitivist which I am assuming is what I am describing. To me, yes, I think that it's a trap. It seems like a puzzle that wasn't built right. A textbook problem with a misprint you'll never find out. Could be our design flaw.
Shrunkenhead61 1 year ago
God's particular ontology is irrelevant. It all hinges on the burden of proof (BOP) which is also why I'm fine being called an atheist. You see, it is logically impossible to reject a claim of existence that hasn't been made 1st. Who cares how lacking a theist's presented ontology may be. As a-theists, our rejection is ALWAYS contingent on whatever claim they DO make. They ALWAYS have the BOP. They can't prove ANY version of their ontology for god so, incoherent or not, it just doesn't matter.
eyeammi 1 year ago
here's an idea. Quit worrying about if God is real or not, and call bosley hair restoration
Douchify09 1 year ago
We get it, you've stumbled upon ignosticism, now please start rationalizing the mountain of false beliefs and concepts you've blindly accepted to form the character we have been presented with here.
djshaffer1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djshaffer1
What are you even talking about?
shanoxilt 1 year ago
Excellent video, Thanks to ProfMTH for the link.
I really liked your last sentence.
saintpine 1 year ago
Wow I've sorta been thinking about this too, but I could never put into words the way you have. It's true that the moment you can give a clear description of god he isn't god anymore.
Begeru 1 year ago
Your conclusion is some cracked up shit indeed.
What we just end up with really is the same as can be inferred whenever observing god from an outsiders perspective. It simply makes no sense whatsoever and as you well say, it relies on this nonsense to sustain itself, which is indeed, hilarious.
Kudos !
Azotadeth 1 year ago
Nice video. Interestingly I've had lately more and more similar feeling that a god concept is kind of like a black hole in mind as it can effectively suck in all reason without giving any out.
miraenna 2 years ago
@ProfessorPratt
We already have a word for everything that exists.
It's called: "universe"
ctvwr 2 years ago
@ctvwr
Exactly.
ProfessorPratt does not realize that his argument was destroyed two thousand years ago by the Greek philosophers.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
Brilliant!! I had given up the label atheist now with a while back, but my explanations so far have been rather weak. Yours though have been very good, keep up the good work. :)
MaltyT 2 years ago
This is one of those videos that makes me think I still have a lot to learn about. Obviously, there are ideas out there that I still haven't come across, even briefly.
I like that. Thanks.
YourXavier 2 years ago
lol, at the end I couldn't help but think of the god concept as shrinking down to a singularity
STFUNOWlol 2 years ago
I came back to this video. Do you tell people you're an atheist when posed with the question out on the street? Do you go into this long train of thought? Do you paraphrase it?
Does it bother you if/when you have to go by the title "atheist".
STFUNOWlol 2 years ago
@STFUNOWlol
I am an ignostic/theological noncognitivist as well. Personally, I do not object to the labels atheist or agnostic. And I AM against religion and superstition too.
shanoxilt 1 year ago
love your train of thought
Rokkht 2 years ago
You're right. If you do not have aconcept that corresponds to the term "god" (because no one can define it coherently for you) then you are without god - which is what atheist means.
There is a reason Socratic method begins with definition of terms. If you can't define your concepts, you can't prove that they refer to anything that actually exists.
pirbird14 2 years ago
Ah, I see. That's interesting. Thanks for the info.
DoomTone11 2 years ago
7:31 "but so is calling yourself a non-_______".
You were saying being a non-something resulted in more interesting conversation, but I couldn't understand what you said. What was it?
DoomTone11 2 years ago
"That's brilliant... Effectively equating God to 'meaninglessness' but still retain its power of influence." (the gist of what you said)
That's deep, man. Deep.
happyjihad 2 years ago
watch the zeitgeist
27navyseal09 2 years ago
Thank you. I wish everyone would just understand this.
ryeguy34 2 years ago
I think the trend has been to make the God concept more and more nebulous BECAUSE science is shedding more measurements and light on the reality around us.
God is retreating into whatever gaps are left, and there less available now as we discover more and more.
It goes back to the riddle of Epicures. Those vague attributes are alone enough to make God seem foolish. Forget the more basic ontological coherency.
Niveous23 2 years ago
The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive
shanoxilt 2 years ago
Bah!
I call myself a generic non-theist. I accept any and all the nontheistic positions:
every permutation of atheism, agnosticism, theological noncognitivism, and ignosticism.
shanoxilt 2 years ago
Hi,
I know God is more than what people and physics have defined so far by my personal experiences and scientific studies, you can only believe what I am saying or not. (That is your choice). Or you can do the science to understand it.
Ok, panentheism and pantheism are close but still incorrect, you cannot have the universe without God, but you can have God without the universe.
The "universe" is physically finite as defined by all theories except for one, but it is infinite in God.
VolksRocket 2 years ago
Hi,
No, God is more than what has been defined by people and physics at this time. God is more than the universe, the definition of what the universe is, is incorrect due to the limited framing of what the "universe" actually is. (Einstein was correct up to the limits of his understanding of the universe, his framework was limited due to the belief the universe is finite.)
VolksRocket 2 years ago
The only reason the label 'atheist' is used at all because like 90% of the world believes in a god. As far as im concerned, its just saying im not one of them.
Aturayd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hi,
God is All!
VolksRocket 2 years ago
The non-cognitivist stance is gaining some momentum.
Synchronomyst 2 years ago 6
damn straight
chessdawgz 2 years ago
You are stating that the reason we cannot begin to discuss God is because there is no way of defining God. However, this is not exactly true. When I ask who a person in history is I am told of what he or she did, said, and sometimes physical attributes. It is a give-in that the person is human, usually, unless in being first told of the entity it was not mentioned that it was an animal, organization, or town. However, with God we have records of what He has said and done... continued...
sadanyagci 3 years ago
We do not know what He is because we have not been told, and have had little chance to observe what He has said is Him directly. We know certain extents of His abilities. He claimed Himself as the one who made all that we see. Therefore, since most of what we know is what we see, we know Him to be able to make and affect such without limit (or known limit). We cannot say exactly what He is, but we can infer what He is not. That is why you see it the way you do. continued...
sadanyagci 3 years ago
We know of His location as an entity, we know He sees at least everything that He made at all times, because that is what His words and actions show. Since He claims creation of all that we know, all that we know, to the smallest detail, He sees. But again, these are attributes, which you did not want. You want to know what He is, and probably why I call Him a He. I can answer that second one, but as for the first, we don't know. He has appeared many times as human-like. continued...
sadanyagci 3 years ago
Comment removed
sadanyagci 3 years ago
However, He is not human, as He claims to have made humans. He said we were made in His image, sort of like you would form a statue. It would contain certain attributes of the original, but not the same basic structure. In the same way, we were made. In order to know what He is without seeing Him, you would have to study His "statue" (humans). You would then have to take what you know of Him and place that over our knowledge of humans in an overriding/complementary manner. continued...
sadanyagci 3 years ago
However, just as many years ago we lacked cellular and atomic understanding of what a human is, we still lack understanding of what makes up God. But we can refer to the entity that has spoken and acted in His own manner many times before, regardless of how much we know of what or where He is, just like we can refer to and discuss the voice we heard over the telephone, regardless of what the speaker of it looked like, or whether it was a human, a parrot, or a computer. We refer by known actions.
sadanyagci 3 years ago
You might find this interesting. Neuroscience has found that when believers think about god the same part of the brain lights up that lights up when they think of their friends or family members. Believers give god (in their mind) the same primary characteristic they give people.
Source: Vilayanur S. Ramachandran (The Beyond Belief conference thesciencenetwork . c o m)
Zigiwy 3 years ago
WTF is the god "meme" are you trying to say that if people aren't discussing it on the internet then it is less valid? Just because hindus aren't assholes like christian creationists, trying to spread they're religion on the internet to young kids, doesn't make their gods any less valid than the god of isreal which I'm guessing is the god you are talking about. You shouldn't reject other ideas just because they aren't as popular as others, unless your just fishing for pointless debates for fun:)
deadbabyfingers 3 years ago
"are you trying to say that if people aren't discussing it on the internet then it is less valid?"
Where the fuck did you get that idea from? Do you know what a meme is?
"You shouldn't reject other ideas just because they aren't as popular as others"
This is not a discussion about "popularity". At all. Not even remotely. Watch the first video in this series so you'll at least have an understanding of context. Or go away.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
well you are right my understanding of what a meme is was not correct. Still you said in the video god's like vishnu aren't part of the current god meme everyone is talking about so they are a non issue. Explain to me how that is not a disscussion about popularity. You just rejected an entire religion and called it a non issue because people aren't talking about it as much as the religions of israel.
deadbabyfingers 3 years ago
"Explain to me how that is not a disscussion about popularity."
Because this is a discussion regarding a particular school of apologetics that Vishnu is not a part of. It's not a matter of "popularity".
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
well you were presenting this as a disscussion about theism and athiesm. That's what I got from the first video at least, considering it's called "I am no longer an athiest" If you are just talking about christianity and islam and whatever other religions are in this particular school of apologetics than why are you even bringing up athiesm? it is a concept about the rejection or disbelief of theism not just one particular god.
deadbabyfingers 3 years ago
What do I think? I think you've seen the light haha. It's truly an astonishing fact that god in all his "glory" is proudly reduced to the ashes of meaninglessness by his defenders.
Zigiwy 3 years ago 3
The thing is though, like you have stated before (implicitly at least), you end up at the default position.
Here's my god ontology: God is a balloon that's just out of reach as you run to try and catch it. It will take you allllllll around the world, back to the balloon vendor and when you're almost there... ready to grasp reality once again, all the balloons of different colors and shapes block your view.
Zigiwy 3 years ago
God damn.
You just blew my mind.
0platypus0venom0 3 years ago
Is it weird that I find you sexy because you're so damn smart and eloquent? Plus the way you rake your hands through your hair is really cute.
;-)
Oh, and as for what I think... I think that I can't find even one point in your video with which I disagree.
ZER0C00Lmosthated 3 years ago
Your videos are awesome. This is all I'll be able to think about for a couple of days.
TomConger 3 years ago
Obfuscation is the hallmark of all theology.
klangsteiner 3 years ago
Obscurantism is a shitty word. Never use it again.
stainy47 3 years ago
I think that possibly when the bible was being witten, someone may have made the mistake. Maybe you can throw away a portion of information, that could make God Self-explanitory. But, that isn't the topic. I really can't throw out anything that hasn't been covered in this video, other then the fact that it would make more sense if God is non-material, or maybe even inbeing. But that does not work with the description of God anyway, so any way you look at it does not make complete sense.
Kaynex 3 years ago
Perhaps it was why the Buddha was silent about the existence of God and why many schools of philosophical thought arose in ancient India questioning the very existence of God as a central controlling universal principle.
The problem is that the human mind which is accustomed to the language of the words and symbols cannot grasp the Absolute Truth that cannot really be compared to anything else.
nethawk00 3 years ago
It is beyond all. There the mind does not go, nor the senses, nor our understanding. It is always infront of the senses and intelligence. It is only through personal experience perhaps one may grasp a little about It. But even about this we are not sure.
It is doubtful whether any one can really experience something which does not exist or which is simply non-existence or non-Being and come back to us and describe it to us in the normal planes of thought.
nethawk00 3 years ago
First I must say I agree with you, you can't define something that is beyond understanding. One can't define the source of everything aka god/higher being as its beyond human comprehension.
In the manifest state we believe there are several planes of consciousness, dimensions, time frames, worlds or planes of existence and realities. There is the material universe that is known to the senses and the transcendental universe known only to the beings of the highest planes.
nethawk00 3 years ago
Have you ever had a spiritual experience?
bosshallucy 3 years ago
What do I think? I think I agree 100%.
Ignosticism/theological noncognitivism:
A coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition cannot be falsified, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
AcidRain64 3 years ago
What do I think. I think I can learn a lot from you.
zbambam5 3 years ago
eightfootmanchild, A very interesting video- It is making me think and examine my own understanding of the matter.
SaraCares 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
READ THE HOLLY KORAN MR Nietzsche the you will know about God and its infinity cause u dont make sense to me at all.
gadiri77 3 years ago
Brilliant 5 stars ^_^
psychologyprofessor 3 years ago
Ah, you've been reading Nietzsche
awormyourhonor 3 years ago
Not recently, no.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
A good precursor to the argument from ignorance.
Someone needs to get you a 'pro-skub' teeshirt.
awormyourhonor 3 years ago
The lack of an ontology is a defense mechanism for believers. As you state, god once did have an ontology - a bearded man in the sky. But since, like Zeus, a unicorn or a teapot orbiting between Earth and Venus, that ontology is easily refuted, disproved or shown to be incredibly unlikely, believers have resorted fantastical twists of logic in order to justify their beliefs.
They disparately cling to superstition because they are afraid of the alternative - nothing.
johnycannuk 3 years ago 2
Typically, it's used as a conversational shortcut; when someone asks me my religion, instead of saying "Well, Im a weak atheist. That is to say Im an atheist/agnostic because strong atheism makes an absolutist assertion. Further the lack of ontological description of God deprives me of the ability if expressing an opinion on the subject as we have not agreed on what 'it' is."
I might simply say, Atheist.
enclave2k1 3 years ago
One point of contention though. You mention in this video that theologians would not agree with someones description of God as a bearded man in the sky. Why does this matter? It shouldnt even matter if everyone agrees what god is. If I can tell you that God is a old man with a white beard who lives outside of our universe, created everything, knows everything, and can do anything, this is certainly enough to choose whether or not there is evidence present to support this claim.
enclave2k1 3 years ago
What follows is, I have some descriptions of a God which provide me with an ontology which is unsupported by evidence. As such, I consider myself an atheist of those God's which have met the requisite ontological description and am unable to comment on those that dont.
Im unable to see how this does not make you an atheist. Surely, some persons's view of the Abrahamic god maybe so obscure that you could say 'I neither believe or disbelieve in your description of the Abrahamic god'.
enclave2k1 3 years ago
In that case, though, I reject the label of "atheist" for the same reason I reject "aunicornist". Neither is particularly useful as a descriptor. You're welcome to call me one on those grounds, if you like, though I don't suppose you'd care enough to.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
Like I mention initially it's useful as a conversational shortcut; it has its uses, but I am not defined by it.
enclave2k1 3 years ago
If the christian god (to focus on one example) was claimed to be nothing more specific than that which answers prayers, then it could be as straightforward as you just mentioned.
It's more complicated though because of the extra things that theists say about God. By saying 'i don't believe God exists' (on the basis of unanswered prayers) you're giving theists a free ride, relieving them of the burden of providing a coherent definition of God, which has to be their first step.
bitbutter 3 years ago
No, you're not making a bit of sense.
Theists HAVE definitions of 'god'; not necessarily particularly reasonable or choerent ones, but they have them. You have to take them at their word before you gave anything to argue against, you have to take their definitions at face value before you can refute it.
If their definitions are nonsense, so much the better; they're more easily refuted. But they aren't describing NOTHING, even if they're describing something FICTIONAL.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"you have to take their definitions at face value before you can refute it."
No I don't, and I can't. I have not gotten far enough down the line of discourse to offer a refutation of the "god" concept because it does not exist as a concept. An incoherent idea cannot be refuted any more than a dead person can be killed. There is nothing to discuss. Nothing to address. Nothing to formulate any semblance of a counter-argument on.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
Bollocks; that's exactly what you DO address:
"Your concept is too incoherent to agree to, therefore I reject it until you refine it enough to properly discuss. Until such time as you do, I am an a-conceptist (in this case, an atheist)."
It really is that simple.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"that's exactly what you DO address"
Addressing the coherency of a concept and the actual existence of the same concept are two different things. Which are you referring to?
An atheist has to address the existence of "god" as a concept in order to take a position as to its existence in the first place. That is several orders of magnitude too far down the line of discourse for me to be comfortable with the label.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
Hardly. One needn't have a complete and accurate definition of something to accept or reject it. We don't have a coherent concept of consciousness and self as it relates to biology, yet we accept its existence; we needn't have a complete description of god's being to be able to reject the other parts of the concept.
Theists make claims about what god can do and what god has done; we have only to reject THOSE to be an atheist, to look at what they assert and say, "No god required".
BionicDance 3 years ago
"One needn't have a complete and accurate definition of something to accept or reject it."
Complete and accurate? No. Coherent? Yes. If you want to refer to "it" in any sense, you need to justify your reasons for doing so.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
No, you really don't; to reject something, all you have to do is decide it is merit-free...which you clearly HAVE.
And anyway, I think that the definition IS fairly coherent; I get what they're trying to say, even if I disagree with it.
I think what you're dealing with, here, is a failure of the imagination; I can picture a disembodied intelligence with magical powers, even if I think such a thing is pure fiction. Why can't you?
BionicDance 3 years ago
"I can picture a disembodied intelligence with magical powers, even if I think such a thing is pure fiction. Why can't you?"
Because "disembodied intelligence" is an internal contradiction.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
No, it isn't. It's a contradiction ONLY IF science and nature are all that exist.
While I, too, believe that only science and nature are real, I can at least picture and understand a spiritual realm; I love science fiction and fantasy, novels and movies and video games, and these concepts come up ALL THE TIME. Maybe that's why I can picture a reality outside of science.
IF such a realm exists, a disembodied intelligence could ALSO exist. There is only a contradiction if magic is false. (cont)
BionicDance 3 years ago
Now, I believe magic IS false, and that's why I reject god, but as a fictional concept, it's something I can picture. A personality independent of matter is something I could never EXPLAIN in terms of its origin or functionality, but I certainly CAN conceive of what such a thing's existence might be like for those experiencing interaction with it.
The concept is something that I can imagine, but reject due to lack of evidence; that you can't even IMAGINE it seems a failure of the imagination.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"I love science fiction and fantasy, novels and movies and video games, and these concepts come up ALL THE TIME."
If you examine them in depth, though, you will find they don't make sense EXCEPT when you anthropomorphise them to some degree, thereby defeating their purpose. I can stand to not do so when I watch "Star Wars" or "The Exorcist". Discussions about "god" are another thing entire.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
No, they make perfect sense...just NOT TO YOU.
Like I keep trying to tell you, I get it, you don't; it's a failure of imagination on your part because you cannot accept AS A CONCEPT anything that is not part of the material world, even if only to examine and reject the notion.
The flaw is yours.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"you cannot accept AS A CONCEPT anything that is not part of the material world"
Wrong. I am not, and cannot, reject the "immaterial" a priori. If you tell me there is "something else" other than nature, the onus is yours to provide for WHAT THAT IS. If you can't, you don't get to refer to it as if it were a coherent concept.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
But they HAVE said what that something else is, you just DON'T GET IT. It's a failure of the imagination on your part.
I get it, I understand it...and I reject it. I have done these things; the fact that you CAN'T--or won't--is perplexing, frankly.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"But they HAVE said what that something else is,"
No they haven't. They've said what it ISN'T.
"I get it, I understand it"
Good. Then you can tell me what no theist has ever been able to:
What is the POSITIVE ontology for "immaterial"? Be careful not to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept when you provide your answer.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
"We don't have a coherent concept of consciousness... yet we accept its existence"
Because it's axiomatic to our having this conversation, or any conversation, for that matter. Furthermore, as consciousness clearly occurs as a part of nature, it has its primary attribute accounted for. It's a very broad one, but it's sufficient for being able to refer to it as a coherent concept.
"God" not only lacks a clear or specific primary attribute, it lacks ANY. This is why your analogy fails.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
God HAS a primary attribute according to his/her/its/their proponents, and it's just as broad as that of consciousness, it's just not one that you accept. In fact, it's the SAME as consciousness, really, despite not occurring in nature.
I say again, without intention to insult, that I think it's a failure of imagination on your part. I understand what they're getting at, even if you don't; I still reject it, but I GET it.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"God HAS a primary attribute according to his/her/its/their proponents"
No it doesn't. It's only ever in the negative - as in "immaterial", "supernatural" etc. - or as an equivocation which only begs the same question - as in "spirit".
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
And those are limits of language, not of concepts; your premise is faulty because you insist that language dictates something's nature rather than language DESCRIBING something's nature. The fact that humanity and the world are material is what the language was designed to describe in the first place, but the fact that anything outside the material world is hard to explain in language DOESN'T invalidate the concept.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"you insist that language dictates something's nature rather than language DESCRIBING something's nature"
No, I don't. I insist that it dictates intelligible discourse.
"the fact that anything outside the material world is hard to explain in language DOESN'T invalidate the concept."
In what sense do you refer to a "concept" that is bereft of ontology? What is your justification for referring to it as a "concept" at all?
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
Well, I find this discourse intelligible, I understand what they're trying to get at. The fact that you DON'T is something I find quite perplexing.
It's that simple; ontologically speaking, I see what they're getting at, at least well enough to reject it.
Again, I say, this is a failure of imagination on your part, your worldview is too narrow to accommodate non-material concepts EVEN AS FICTION or speculation.
The flaw is yours.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"your worldview is too narrow to accommodate non-material concepts"
This statement clarifies that you don't a have a clue what my worldview is.
I will point out, for at least the fifth time in the last 24 hours, that I do not, and can not, reject the "immaterial" a priori.
I'll say it again, I do not reject the "immaterial" a priori.
One more time, I do not reject the cocksucking motherfucking "immaterial" a priori.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
"This statement clarifies that you don't a have a clue what my worldview is."
Or that I think it's a load of shit. *rolls eyes*
The reality of material or immaterial is irrelevant anyway; theism can be rejected on other grounds since theism makes other claims that have everything to do with the material world.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"Or that I think it's a load of shit."
No, my statement was correct. Your claim that deny the "immaterial" a priori does not comport with reality, therefor, you do not understand my worldview.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
That doesn't make ANY sense, and not just because of your mangled grammar; I never said that at all.
Frankly, the more you use the term "a priori," the more I'm convinced that you're entirely too hung up on it, and too hung up on defining what god IS instead of what god has DONE. Theists make plenty of falsifiable claims about what their immaterial father figure has done, actions he/she/it/they have taken which are false, and that's enough to reject theism and be an atheist.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"I never said that at all."
Yes you did. Here it is:
"your worldview is too narrow to accommodate non-material concepts"
"Theists make plenty of falsifiable claims about what their immaterial father figure has done"
I know that. I find it very easy to refute the proposed SECONDARY and RELATIONAL attributes of "god". That's not what this discussion is about. Go somewhere else if you want to address that topic.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
This is how ridiculous your position is:
God is made of 'sceublar'. It's an ethereal substance formed of spiritual energy which exists on the ethereal plane of existence that can maintain intelligent consciousness.
Happy now? We have god's primary attribute: sceublar. It can't be seen, it can't be touched, but doggonit, it can be a magical person.
Can you reject it NOW? Huh? Huh? Can you? *rolls eyes*
BionicDance 3 years ago
"Happy now?"
No. All you've done is pushed the same problem back one step by erroneously introducing another vacuous non-concept into the mix. Now I will ask you what the positive ontology of an "ethereal substance" is. Back to Square One.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
And THIS is why I say that there is no answer that will satisfy you. Ever. Because you can't even discuss the matter AS A HYPOTHETICAL.
Let me ask you: what is a ghost? Never mind if ghosts are REAL, surely you've encountered ghosts in fiction...are you unable to understand what they are within the framework of the story, or do you get it?
Because understanding the basis for god is essentially the same as understanding the basis for ghosts, even if you insist they're both fictional.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"Ghost" suffers the same problem. In order to form an image in my mind (that is, after all, the point of fiction), it needs to be anthropomorphized in some sense, either as a glowing light or the stereotypical guy in a white sheet or what have you.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
"In order to form an image in my mind..."
I keep telling you that your problem is a failure of the imagination; here you've just proved it.
You can't PICTURE god from the descriptions given to you; that doesn't mean the problem is with the DESCRIPTIONS.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"that doesn't mean the problem is with the DESCRIPTIONS."
If they are internally contradictory, then yes, it is.
Can you picture a square circle? Is it the fault of your imagination that you can't?
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
You can say they're internally contradictory all you like, but I have yet to see you SHOW it.
You think you have, I know that; you haven't. All you keep saying is, "Positive ontology! I need a positive ontology!", but not having one doesn't make something internally contradictory, it just means that English doesn't have the words yet, or that what's being described has been inadequately experienced, or both. But that's no contradiction, it's just a dearth of positive information!
BionicDance 3 years ago
"You can say they're internally contradictory all you like, but I have yet to see you SHOW it."
-Using entity language to refer to a concept with no primary attribute is internally contradictory, as it is not clear in what sense the proposed entity can be referred to as such
-Naming secondary or relational characteristics that are not parsimonious with "immaterial", "supernatural" etc. is internally contradictory
This was all addressed in the videos.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
"Using entity language to refer to a concept with no primary attribute is internally contradictory, as it is not clear in what sense the proposed entity can be referred to as such"
No, it isn't internally contradictory, it's just INCOMPLETE. That's a huge difference.
"Naming secondary or relational characteristics that are not parsimonious with "immaterial", "supernatural" etc. is internally contradictory"
How so?
BionicDance 3 years ago
"No, it isn't internally contradictory, it's just INCOMPLETE."
Referring to "god" as an entity without providing the basis to do so is internally contradictory.
"How so?"
For example, calling "god" "supernatural" and ascribing attributes that infer an interaction with nature, thereby stealing the concept.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
"Referring to "god" as an entity without providing the basis to do so is internally contradictory."
...which breaks down to nothing more than, "Prove it!". And while that's also MY position against theists, the difference is that I can understand, imagine, and entertain the notion of god as an entity WITHOUT having to know how it works, what it's made of, and where it lives.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"but not having one doesn't make something internally contradictory"
You're right. It makes it incoherent. Congratulations. You accidentally said something true.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
"You're right. It makes it incoherent."
No, it doesn't...except possibly to you. Again, this is the failure of your imagination; the imperfection is yours.
I, and many others, find it coherent. In my case, coherent enough to say that I don't buy it for a second, but still...I understand it.
And, no, I can't explain it to you. Because of your inability to step outside your narrow worldview to consider concepts that are, frankly, over your head.
You are willfully ignorant.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"No, it doesn't...except possibly to you"
And every philosopher and logician who has ever lived, all of whom accept the reality of X=X.
"Because of your inability to step outside your narrow worldview"
You don't know what my worldview is.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
In doing this though, the proposed nature of a "ghost" has been violated, since, being of the "spirit" world, they aren't supposed to be anthropomorphised. Therefor, the image in my mind can not actually be accurately described as a "ghost".
I am, of course, able to ignore this fact in the interest of entertainment.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
You have got it BACKWARDS. "Immaterial" is a negative ontological term which rejects the MATERIAL a priori.
This is not a "failure of imagination". This is a matter contingent on intelligibility.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
Your problem is one of LANGUAGE, not one of CONCEPT, and THAT'S why it's a problem. Your entire argument boils down to, "If there's not a words for it, it cannot be discussed." And that's eight flavors of bullshit, and you should know it.
BionicDance 3 years ago
That's an interesting position. How often do you discuss things without using words?
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
All the time.
Why, have you never encountered an insert-placeholder-here concept in conversation?
For example, what is a quark made of? We know what a quark can MAKE, but what is it made from? What do you call that which makes a quark?
Another example: what is "dark matter"? The term itself is a placeholder for a hypothetical form of matter, but what is it ACTUALLY?
There's no word for what makes an immaterial being, yet we can discuss it as a hypothetical...only you refuse to do so.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Your analogies fail. Quarks and dark matter both have a universe of discourse - nature - under which to operate.
"Immaterial" doesn't.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
Sure it does; it has MULTIPLE universes of discourse: magic, ether, spirituality, etc.
BionicDance 3 years ago
See above. All you've done is pushed the same problem back one step.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
So what? It's the same for nature; I point to my analogy with the material that makes up quarks. There will ALWAYS be an infinite regression back to some undefinable thing, substance, nature, whatever. Always...it never ends.
I could just as easily ask YOU, "What is the ontology of nature?" See the problem? You're essentially arguing the case for 'irreducible complexity'.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"It's the same for nature; I point to my analogy with the material that makes up quarks"
It's problematic, or course, but it's not the same. Far from it.
In one case, you replace one coherent substance with another, which allows for the process of emergentism. In the other, you replace one vacuous non-concept with another, which allows for jack shit.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
See, this is where the failure of imagination is: it's NOT a non-concept; a concept is EXACTLY WHAT IT IS!
It's a hypothetical, it's an inferred concept, much like dark matter. Nobody has ever studied dark matter, yet they believe it is there because it is inferred by its interactions with the things around it. And it's exactly the same with god: something inferred, not positively identified and directly studied.
So explain to me EXACTLY how that is a "non-concept". I just conceptualized it!
BionicDance 3 years ago
"So explain to me EXACTLY how that is a "non-concept"."
It has no universe of discourse.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
First of all, bullshit.
Second of all, even if so, then so what?
Again, this is a failure of imagination on your part. Are you SERIOUSLY saying that you can't imagine what is MEANT by god as a non-material entity with magic powers in order to consider THAT as a concept? Really? Because that's quite frankly DAFT.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"First of all, bullshit."
I'm sorry, I must have missed it. What universe of discourse are you operating under?
"Second of all, even if so, then so what?"
So everything. I'll ask again, do you know what a universe of discourse is?
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
Yes, I know what a universe of discourse is, just as I know that THAT is your artificial limit.
Hell, your whole argument boils down to, "There isn't a word for it, therefore it can't be discussed, therefore it doesn't exist." And I know you'll dispute the "therefore it doesn't exist" part, but that's what you've unwittingly done.
But you're wrong; god can be described, even if only in negatives, and a concept CAN be formed; you've just artificially limited yourself to a universe of discourse
BionicDance 3 years ago
"Are you SERIOUSLY saying that you can't imagine what is MEANT by god"
How can I imagine what is meant by "god"? What if I'm wrong? What if what I'm imagining isn't what the theist is attempting to refer to? This is why I ask for specifics.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
But you're asking for specifics that you're NEVER GOING TO GET.
Even if the concept you have is wrong in particulars, it can be right in general, and that's really all that's required to reject the theist stance and take up the mantle of atheist.
It's like saying, "Why don't you like Star Trek? Don't you think phasers are cool?" Doesn't matter; I don't care for the universe it's set it, therefore I'm not a fan.
Same deal here; the god concept in general stinks, so I'm an atheist. Badabing.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"It really is that simple."
Not really, no. This is where I part ways with George Smith/Michael Martin/Francois Trembley, who use non-cognitivism as a basis for gnostic atheism. I still think the term itself lends too much credence to "god" as a concept, when this is what non-cognitivism sets to disprove.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
Sort of self-defeating, so to speak.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
"But they aren't describing NOTHING"
That is partly true.
I can very easily disbelieve in secondary and relational attributes. If I have a friend, for example, who tells me they can fly, I will disbelieve in that attribute on the grounds of its physical impossibility. I can apply the same scrutiny to certain attributes of "god".
I CANNOT, however, address the entity of "god" itself in the same way, because it lacks a primary attribute.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
I genuinely don't believe that there is anything you would ever accept as a primary attribute that would ALSO still retain the intended concept of those making the assertion.
While I personally don't believe there's anything outside the physical realm, no spiritual realm at all, I'm willing to at least hear theist arguments against that position. But to HEAR them, I have to be willing to at least entertain ideas that go outside what I believe in first.
I don't think YOU are; that the problem.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"I genuinely don't believe that there is anything you would ever accept as a primary attribute that would ALSO still retain the intended concept of those making the assertion."
That's the beauty of it, isn't it?
cont'd
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
"What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it."
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
(the full Augustine quote from the description box)
In other words, if it can be referred to AT ALL, it isn't "god". That's coming from one of the most revered believers, not me.
And yet, somehow, that's supposed to be the "strength" of the "god" concept.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
And yet, rejecting THAT--the concept that god cannot be known and anything known is not god--MAKES YOU AN ATHEIST.
That's my point; to be an atheist, all you have to do is tell a theist they're full of shit. Understanding their concept or having it put in terms you'll accept isn't necessary; all that's necessary to be an atheist is non-acceptance.
You claim not to be an atheist, but a rose by any other name...
BionicDance 3 years ago
"That's my point; to be an atheist, all you have to do is tell a theist they're full of shit."
No. Specifically, and by definition, I have to lack a belief in "god". I can't lack belief in something with no ontology.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
Yes, you can. That is EXACTLY the basis on which you reject it.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Reject WHAT? What is your basis for referring to "god" as an "it"?
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
I have absolutely no answer that you will accept.
I have answers...but you'll just throw that "no ontology" bullshit around again...and it IS bullshit. I've TRIED to explain it to you already, multiple times, but you seem to keep ignoring the relevant bits, so what's the point?
Hell, it's getting to the point where I almost have to go on a pro-theism rant, JUST to explain to you what it is that I reject as an atheist! Sheesh! *rolls eyes*
BionicDance 3 years ago
"I have absolutely no answer that you will accept."
Don't be so presumptuous. Give it a shot. Take up the same challenge I proposed to TheEdge012:
If you yourself deny that "god" can be referred to as an entity, what is your basis for continuing to do so?
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
I DON'T deny that god can be referred to as an entity. And even if it CAN'T, neither can gravity; both are immaterial forces according to those who describe them.
You criteria by which god can be described is artificially limited, and therefore artificially limiting your thought, your ability to even DISCUSS the issue.
I say again, the flaw is yours.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"I DON'T deny that god can be referred to as an entity."
If you deny the theist's account of "god"s primary attribute, than yes, you do deny that it can be referred to as an entity.
"And even if it CAN'T, neither can gravity"
So? Who uses entity language to describe gravity? Where did that come from?
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
Wrong. I deny the theist's claim of god's existence in the first place, but NOT their description of god. heir description makes perfect sense...as fiction. But their claims of existence are not borne out by reality.
Entity language is IRRELEVANT; the descriptions are similar: invisible, immaterial, etc.; that one is alleged to be conscious and the other is not has nothing to do with this.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"their description makes perfect sense"
How? How do you "make sense" of referring to an entity with no universe of discourse to speak of?
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
"the descriptions are similar: invisible, immaterial, etc"
One is internally contradictory, the other isn't. Your analogy is still shit.
"that one is alleged to be conscious and the other is not has nothing to do with this."
I didn't say or imply that it did. Where'd you get that from?
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
"You criteria by which god can be described is artificially limited"
No, it's dictated (not "limited") by the inescapable nature of discourse.
Can you name for me another system of discourse I might operate under other than my own, which dictates that entities require primary attributes? Please do not commit the fallacy of stealing the concept when you provide your answer.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
Bollocks; you're limiting yourself quite artificially. Your so-called "nature of discourse" and your insistence on "primary attributes" is, at best, a smokescreen to avoid having to consider a reality which doesn't conform to your worldview. *rolls eyes*
BionicDance 3 years ago
"you're limiting yourself quite artificially"
Then you should be able to answer my question very easily. What other system of discourse can I operate under other than the one I am bound to? Please do not commit the fallacy of stealing the concept when you provide your answer.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
"I have answers...but you'll just throw that "no ontology" bullshit around again...and it IS bullshit."
That's an internal contradiction. Calling the rudiments of intelligible discourse "bullshit" is a statement itself dependent on the rudiments of intelligible discourse, thereby committing the fallacy of the stolen concept.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
The CONCEPT, dummkopf; you reject the CONCEPT on that basis. *rolls eyes skyward*
BionicDance 3 years ago
I'm not sure what this means. How does this address your committing the fallacy of the stolen concept?
By the way, you don't have to keep describing your bodily functions to me. Despite what you apparently believe, I do have an imagination.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
The fact that you don't understand what this means IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM.
Like I've been saying, it's a failure of the imagination on your part. Expand your mind or you'll NEVER understand. There's simply no way I can explain this to you because you've walled off your mind from considering certain concepts.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"There's simply no way I can explain this to you because you've walled off your mind from considering certain concepts."
You've already demonstrated that you don't understand my worldview, so you can stop making this claim.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
No, I understand your worldview. It just happens to be BULLSHIT.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"I understand your worldview."
No, you don't actually. You've made positive statements as to what comprises my worldview which are not true and which I have concisely pointed out to you.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
You haven't concisely pointed out ANYTHING; your objections to my reiteration of your position is inevitably nonsensical...either that, or it's RIDICULOUS, and I'm simply rejecting what you mean because I can't conceive of anyone actually attempting to hold such a position.
You position seems to be, "They can't define it to my satisfaction, so I won't consider the notion AT ALL," but defining anything to your satisfaction seems limited by your worldview, to what you'll accept; artificial limit.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"You haven't concisely pointed out ANYTHING"
Here it is one more time. You said:
"your worldview is too narrow to accommodate non-material concepts"
This statement is false.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
Bollocks; here's your own statement that shows EXACTLY what your position is on non-material concepts:
"Your analogies fail. Quarks and dark matter both have a universe of discourse - nature - under which to operate."
Nature is comprised ENTIRELY of matter; you won't consider anything outside of the natural or material world...or if you WILL, you've given ZERO evidence to that effect, and have rejected out of hand any discussion of non-material concepts.
BionicDance 3 years ago
That statement does not illustrate a position on "non-material" concepts. Not even remotely close. Do you even know what a universe of discourse is?
"you won't consider anything outside of the natural or material world"
How many times can you re-word the same strawman?
"and have rejected out of hand any discussion of non-material concepts."
No, I haven't. I ALWAYS make it a point to ask for a positive ontology of "immaterial". If none is given, THEN I reject it.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
SHOW ME that it's a strawman. Show me ANYTHING that is immaterial which you are willing to consider, WITH OR WITHOUT your completely unreasonable insistence on positive ontology.
Your entire argument rejects placeholders for things not yet fully understood, and that's where the artificial limit is. But again, I point to dark matter: dark matter is only INFERRED, yet you're willing to consider it, but you WON'T consider anything outside your narrow worldview of nature, even as FICTION.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"SHOW ME that it's a strawman."
I have. Three times. I don't believe the thing that you said I believe. I can only rephrase this point so many ways.
"Show me ANYTHING that is immaterial which you are willing to consider"
The onus is not mine to do so. I am not the one proposing it as a coherent concept.
"Your entire argument rejects placeholders for things not yet fully understood"
No it doesn't. It rejects concepts that are internally incoherent.
eightfootmanchild 3 years ago
You say "immaterial" is a negative ontology, and you won't consider those, which is EXACTLY what I accused you of. You say you'll only consider anything with a positive ontology, which is the artificial limit on your thinking, which is exactly what I've been saying all along.
There's no strawman; this is the position you've taken. Your position is, "Stop telling me what it isn't and tell me what it IS," and then you won't accept what you're told it is.
BionicDance 3 years ago