Critiquing the enlightened

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by universaldistress, Aug 21, 2012.

  1. lalalandscape Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    41
    I'm sorry, I was under the impression that when people used terms they had definitions for them, otherwise it is like saying it is possible that X exists where X can be anything. It has no substance so why even bother discussing it. My entire question was geared toward gathering specifics on what was possible for God to be in accordance with science, but since you didn't actually explain any possible definitions of God I don't see how I could carry on.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    As I don't know whether god exists, it would be kind of omniscient of me to be able to define (definitive) god? However we could speculate on possible definitions of god, without pinning down the term precisely (as in this could be possible, or that could be possible). I would imagine there are a few (if not many) different definitions of god that could work without contradicting science (as I inferred in my last post on alternative interpretations) as science is by its limits, limited in how far it can query? I don't think the fact "god" is non-defined necessarily means it is a subject that can't be speculated upon?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lalalandscape Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    41
    Again failing to give possible definitions of God.

    And yes it does mean it can't be speculated upon. When we are discussing the validity of one concept with another, we need to understand what those concepts are. This is basic communication.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    I don't have to define god. I am not trying to prove anything. I am willing to speculate, in the same way a scientist speculates on the origins of the universe in a way that doesn't contradict empirical knowledge.

    Speculations by their very nature are speculative, and therefore something that doesn't need to be fixed down rigidly as many speculative offerings are put in the pot. For me THIS is very basic. If you want me to offer a speculation I can do that. But you just seem to be a bit of a pedantic idiot who is confusing himself. The very speculation you are saying isn't possible would be in fact a process of producing a definition. How the hell can I produce a definition without speculation?

    Stop being an argumentative idiot. If you want to work with me here to produce a definition then we can do that. Just stop erroneously picking fights on unimportant peripheral points.

    There are broad definitions we could start with, to work towards a specific definition. But I have already stated that a deistic god could be a good place to start (something you have chosen to forget), so I think maybe you are picking my brains for more here. But the more definitive definition you are after would be a speculation (something you claim isn't possible (that's a fucking laugh)).

    Are you really willing to get involved in this kind of speculation, or do you have nothing to bring to the table here yourself? (I have observed that when idiots have nothing to offer they tend to argue about terminology instead of the point at hand).
     
  8. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    So our god would be deistic, and not contradict any scientific facts. That sounds possible to me. Created the universe and then sat back and watched it unfold, with zero intervention, just set the laws of physics; or maybe god created the universe but still gets involved in the running of the universe by imposing the laws of physics as it runs, doesn't choose to intervene as such, but just ensures matter does as it does according to the laws of physics as set by god. Two speculations that zoom in a bit closer to a possible (definitive) definition.
     
  9. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    There seem to be three main divisions of the question of God's existence, as we might cast them in the context of modern culture. The first simply says the issue is moot because God was an invention used to explain phenomena for which ancient people had no science. The second is the fundamentalist position that stakes reality on the literal Bible, and the third is everything else that can't be pigeonholed in either of these.

    By far, in objective terms, the most supportable position is the one that renders the issue moot, and proceeds instead into the kinds of evidence that establish ancient myth and superstition. The "everything else" category might be raised, but it seems that it would be hard to find cause for it.

    I think arguing God's existence takes on a counterfeit nature. People like to go straight to the question of proof, assuming the hypothesis not to be moot. The only correct way to do this is to bring in some valid controversy that hasn't already been overruled by basic classroom level instruction in Science and History.
     
  10. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    I agree with you Aqueous Id, on the notion that "God" is a creation of human/man, but it doesn't necessarily (with reason) prove or follow that "a god" does not exist? (or indeed that god does exist?)
     

Share This Page