Lets face it...

[Archaeopteryx]

We also make a lot bigger bomb with it.

We do. However, I did specify that we "get along" better in terms of our understanding of the universe by knowing that E=MC^2. How such knowledge is applied is another matter.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

in terms of our understanding of the universe

Or parts of it. Knowing the mass of a feather does not mean we know the mass of the bird.

 

[Davian]

Of course the burden is on my side. When you yourself have no side, mine's the only side there is.

Indeed. If only we had a label for the theistic position that lacks both a belief in gods, and the burden of evidence...

The question isn't how far would they get, but whether they are true. A true concept would be true regardless of whether humans could fully explain it or even be aware of it.

I guess that is why I generally avoid considering what is "true". It may be true that universe-creating pixies are responsible for the universe that as we observer it, but it would only be speculation on our part.

That's an interesting question. What you say might be true, but I think If my God concept was actually real, then I should expect the statement would apply even more.

How does that work? Imaginary gods are not detectable, and real gods are even less detectable?

Whereas, if my God concept were the product of human imagination, shouldn't human imagination be capable of fully defining it? Science fiction writers have always created entire worlds along with foreign concepts and foreign modes of being and whatnot.

I dunno. I haven't see that definition yet.

What would be the practical difference between a deity that was entirely imaginary, and one that was not observable in reality?

 

[Chesterton]

Indeed. If only we had a label for the theistic position that lacks both a belief in gods, and the burden of evidence...

See, I think you're just messing with me.

I guess that is why I generally avoid considering what is "true". It may be true that universe-creating pixies are responsible for the universe that as we observer it, but it would only be speculation on our part.

Maybe for now. Maybe not forever. Or you could decide to trust something the way you trust ______ (whatever it is you believe in and won't tell me).

How does that work? Imaginary gods are not detectable, and real gods are even less detectable?

gods could probably be detectable; we could climb Mt. Olympus and talk to Zeus. But The Real God, who's responsible for Mt. Olympus and the Zeus if there is one, must necessarily reside somehow outside of the things He made, right? A carpenter doesn't live inside the walls of the house he built, and Shakespeare doesn't live inside the story of Romeo and Juliet.

I dunno. I haven't see that definition yet.

Definition of what?

What would be the practical difference between a deity that was entirely imaginary, and one that was not observable in reality?

Can you re-state the question? I don't understand.

 

[Davian]

See, I think you're just messing with me.

No, just referring to our earlier disagreements with labels.

Maybe for now. Maybe not forever. Or you could decide to trust something the way you trust ______ (whatever it is you believe in and won't tell me).

As I said earlier, I do not think that I have any "beliefs" that qualify, in the manner that "faith" is used around here.

gods could probably be detectable; we could climb Mt. Olympus and talk to Zeus. But The Real God, who's responsible for Mt. Olympus and the Zeus if there is one, must necessarily reside somehow outside of the things He made, right? A carpenter doesn't live inside the walls of the house he built, and Shakespeare doesn't live inside the story of Romeo and Juliet.

Then, being "inside" this "house", we should not see any trace of this "carpenter". Where is "outside" of the universe?

Definition of what?

Whatever it was we are taking about?

Can you re-state the question? I don't understand.

No. You'll have to answer it as stated. Or, we can just drop it. <shrug>

What would be the practical difference between a deity that was entirely imaginary, and one that was not observable in reality?

 

[TillICollapse]

gods could probably be detectable; we could climb Mt. Olympus and talk to Zeus. But The Real God, who's responsible for Mt. Olympus and the Zeus if there is one, must necessarily reside somehow outside of the things He made, right? A carpenter doesn't live inside the walls of the house he built, and Shakespeare doesn't live inside the story of Romeo and Juliet.

Come on dude lol ... you can do better than this logic can't you ?

 

[Chesterton]

No, just referring to our earlier disagreements with labels.

Where I think you are also messing with me.

As I said earlier, I do not think that I have any "beliefs" that qualify, in the manner that "faith" is used around here.

When I implied that you didn't believe in anything, you replied "Who said I don't believe in anything?" Then you still refused to say what it might be. I'm tired of the game-playing, and honestly, I'm ready to quit this thread.

Then, being "inside" this "house", we should not see any trace of this "carpenter". Where is "outside" of the universe?

Presumably, it's outside of what we can detect and define. Outside of the observable universe, at the end of the needle which sews the fabric of spacetime.

Whatever it was we are taking about?

No. You'll have to answer it as stated. Or, we can just drop it. <shrug>

What would be the practical difference between a deity that was entirely imaginary, and one that was not observable in reality?

It doesn't make sense as stated. You're not making any clear distinction between two things, plus, I don't know what you mean by "practical".

 

[Chesterton]

Come on dude lol ... you can do better than this logic can't you ?

So if all you had to go by was reading Romeo and Juliet, could you describe how tall Shakespeare was, or give his house address?

 

[Davian]

Where I think you are also messing with me.

Not intentionally.

When I implied that you didn't believe in anything, you replied "Who said I don't believe in anything?" Then you still refused to say what it might be. I'm tired of the game-playing, and honestly, I'm ready to quit this thread.

I could say that "I believe that humans evolved from a common ancestor with raccoons", but I don't need faith for that.

I could say that "I believe that my wife loves me" but after 25+ years, multiple children, and those things that she [censored], I don't need faith for that.

Presumably, it's outside of what we can detect and define. Outside of the observable universe, at the end of the needle which sews the fabric of spacetime.

Why concern ourselves over things undetectable and undefinable?

It doesn't make sense as stated. You're not making any clear distinction between two things,

lol. No, the burden is on *you* to provide that distinction. I don't see any, hence the way I have to phrase the question.

plus, I don't know what you mean by "practical".

What we wear on our head, or not. Do we pray, and in which direction. Or dismiss it as imagination.

Back to post 177.

If, hypothetically speaking, this "god" concept of yours is merely a human construct, a product of the imagination, I would think it would be practically impossible to provide a coherent, falsifiable definition for it beyond that of a character in a book. Agreed? Yes or no?

 

[TillICollapse]

So if all you had to go by was reading Romeo and Juliet, could you describe how tall Shakespeare was, or give his house address?

If Romeo and Juliet described aspects of the author, even going so far as to describe interactions between Romeo and Juliet and the author and were filled with such examples ... if they actually took place (it's a work of fiction) ... then I would presume at the time they would be considered "detectable", if nothing else.

Romeo and Juliet is a work of fiction however (even though it's based on real-life events, I believe ... Essex and Southampton ?). I don't think this is a good analogy (for a believer, that is) lol.

 

[Chesterton]

Not intentionally.

Well, I remembered that I have to abide by forum rules too, so, okay.

I could say that "I believe that humans evolved from a common ancestor with raccoons", but I don't need faith for that.

I could say that "I believe that my wife loves me" but after 25+ years, multiple children, and those things that she [censored], I don't need faith for that.

Wow, seriously? How can you believe [have faith in] such outrageous things? (Although I note that you said "I could say that 'I believe'". You won't even go out on a limb for that stuff. What a cautious, timid debater you are!)

Why concern ourselves over things undetectable and undefinable?

Some people want to. I suppose that's a personal question for each of us.

lol. No, the burden is on *you* to provide that distinction. I don't see any, hence the way I have to phrase the question.

It's like asking what's the difference between an imagined apple and an observably real apple. One's real and one's not, or else they're both real, or else they're both not. This was addressed in an earlier post about the Greeks.

What we wear on our head, or not. Do we pray, and in which direction. Or dismiss it as imagination.

Back to post 177.

If, hypothetically speaking, this "god" concept of yours is merely a human construct, a product of the imagination, I would think it would be practically impossible to provide a coherent, falsifiable definition for it beyond that of a character in a book. Agreed? Yes or no?

"Beyond that of a character in a book"? What does that mean - beyond words? We also use art, music, architecture and stuff. I could do some interpretive dance for you but my webcam's on the blink.

 

[Chesterton]

If Romeo and Juliet described aspects of the author, even going so far as to describe interactions between Romeo and Juliet and the author and were filled with such examples ... if they actually took place (it's a work of fiction) ... then I would presume at the time they would be considered "detectable", if nothing else.

Romeo and Juliet is a work of fiction however (even though it's based on real-life events, I believe ... Essex and Southampton ?). I don't think this is a good analogy (for a believer, that is) lol.

The "if's" are not allowed. The author is not described explicitly, although you're right that some things about the author might be gleaned implicitly, or through extrapolation.

 

[TillICollapse]

The "if's" are not allowed.

I suddenly envisioned Seinfeld and some soup ...

The author is not described explicitly, although you're right that some things about the author might be gleaned implicitly, or through extrapolation.

Are we still talking about Romeo and Juliet ? If you really want to go with this analogy ... okay, it's a work of fiction that doesn't mention the author. So no, I couldn't determine how tall Shakespeare was (assuming Shakespeare was the author, since actual authorship has been in dispute), nor the address of his house. Even if it did, it's a work of fiction, thus perhaps any mention of his height or address would be dubious anyways.

What does this analogy concerning a work of fiction with disputed authorship have to do with whether or not gods could be detectable ? I could understand how an unbeliever could use a similar analogy ... but you're not an unbeliever ... ?

 

[Davian]

Well, I remembered that I have to abide by forum rules too, so, okay.



Wow, seriously? How can you believe [have faith in] such outrageous things? (Although I note that you said "I could say that 'I believe'". You won't even go out on a limb for that stuff. What a cautious, timid debater you are!)

"I could" as in "I could, but I don't think it is what you want to hear".

Some people want to. I suppose that's a personal question for each of us.

Bizarre. I cannot relate.

It's like asking what's the difference between an imagined apple and an observably real apple. One's real and one's not, or else they're both real, or else they're both not. This was addressed in an earlier post about the Greeks.

Apples I am familiar with. Gods I only know as character in books. I do not see how the analogy works.

"Beyond that of a character in a book"? What does that mean - beyond words? We also use art, music, architecture and stuff. I could do some interpretive dance for you but my webcam's on the blink.

I guess they will remain as characters in book for now. Fine by me.

New subject: who do you think would win in a fight, Batman vs Superman?

 

[Chesterton]

I suddenly envisioned Seinfeld and some soup ...

Are we still talking about Romeo and Juliet ? If you really want to go with this analogy ... okay, it's a work of fiction that doesn't mention the author. So no, I couldn't determine how tall Shakespeare was (assuming Shakespeare was the author, since actual authorship has been in dispute), nor the address of his house. Even if it did, it's a work of fiction, thus perhaps any mention of his height or address would be dubious anyways.

What does this analogy concerning a work of fiction with disputed authorship have to do with whether or not gods could be detectable ? I could understand how an unbeliever could use a similar analogy ... but you're not an unbeliever ... ?

If you exist within a certain reality, you shouldn't expect to be able to detect scientifically the maker of the reality who exists outside of that reality because the detection methods are limited to within the reality.

 

[Chesterton]

Apples I am familiar with. Gods I only know as character in books. I do not see how the analogy works.

I guess I'm done with you in this thread. Except...

I guess they will remain as characters in book for now. Fine by me.

New subject: who do you think would win in a fight, Batman vs Superman?

Nietzsche's Superman or Siegel's Superman? The Darwinian evolutionary character in a book or the space alien character in a book?

 

[Booko]

So no, I couldn't determine how tall Shakespeare was (assuming Shakespeare was the author, since actual authorship has been in dispute),

It must be Booko's Tangent Night or something. Sorry, but the authorship has been in dispute like the question of whether aliens built the pyramids is in dispute.

And now, old pointless joke time:

The truth is, the works of William Shakespeare were not written by William Shakespeare, but by another man of the same name.

What does this analogy concerning a work of fiction with disputed authorship have to do with whether or not gods could be detectable ?

I'm not following that either.

 

[Davian]

I guess I'm done with you in this thread.

We can pick it back up anytime, if your god becomes detectable or definable.

Except...


Nietzsche's Superman or Siegel's Superman? The Darwinian evolutionary character in a book or the space alien character in a book?

My idea was to keep to characters within the same universe, unless DC did an issue on Nietzsche's Overman that I was not previously aware of....

 

[TillICollapse]

If you exist within a certain reality, you shouldn't expect to be able to detect scientifically the maker of the reality who exists outside of that reality because the detection methods are limited to within the reality.

You said if's were not allowed (first word of your response, bolding mine).

I don't get the "exists outside of that reality". If something truly does exist outside of our reality, then I would agree that we wouldn't be able to detect it, essentially by definition. It would also largely make it irrelevant to us.

However if that something interacts with us, then we could possibly be able to detect it, if at no other point, during those interactions. It would not be impossible, IOW. Do you agree ? Shared unbroken causality aside and what would constitute "another reality" in any relevant way aside ...

It must be Booko's Tangent Night or something. Sorry, but the authorship has been in dispute like the question of whether aliens built the pyramids is in dispute.

Oh so he really isn't the author then ? ;-)

And now, old pointless joke time:

The truth is, the works of William Shakespeare were not written by William Shakespeare, but by another man of the same name.

 

[agua]

If you exist within a certain reality, you shouldn't expect to be able to detect scientifically the maker of the reality who exists outside of that reality because the detection methods are limited to within the reality.

This is an interesting idea Chesterton and I'm not sure that I agree; although I think about the double slit experiment where photons seem to act in a peculiar manner that, as far as I know, still hasn't been acceptably explained. Ok so maybe Yahweh is in a dimension that we have no physical means to investigate, maybe.