By the way, please feel free continue debating, but l've decided to quit the forum, forums are too addictive and l've got a hideous and unfair workload. I'm not trying to have the last word. Peace :)

By the way dude, please continue debating, but l've decided to quit the forum, forums are too addictive and l've got a very addictive personality, and am facing ruin after tonight's time spent on here! I'm not trying to have the last word, honest :^)

OK first let me address an error l made.

I said materialism = anything beyond 1.
Yet the infinity of an infinite God = beyond 1.
So l said, okay, materialism = anything limited, finite.
BUT you are talking about multiple infinite deities.

OK so my counterargs are:
- Actual infinity (= the omnipresent, omnipotent that we were talking about originally) cannot have stuff added to it, so how can there be an extra infinite deity? Unless they have always co-existed?
- Evenso, the number of gods would be >1, and less than infinity, thus there would be a sort of materialism, and thus war is on the cards (= a struggle over something finite).



I have not merely reasserted. Please view my arguments.

What, you say l am projecting my own personal views of how a deity should behave / react to another deity? So are you, by insisting on infinite harmony, merely because you can conceive of it.

Well, l can conceive of infinite harmony being impossible, even the very notion of it. I can conceive of a camel passing through the eye of a needle and coming out alive. The devil is in the detail, i.e. how you actually reason it out. You are absolving yourself of reason, and moreover dismissing my reasoning. Things are getting really arbitrary, not philosophical.

OK good that you can trust me forever. Now turn around. I dare you. *Evil smirks*

Let me put it another way. You say you will trust me forever and will live harmoniously with me forever.

Can i trust you forever, then? From my POV, am i justified in trusting you forever? Yes or no.

If the answer is No, there is only one way that will end, because infinite paranoia is infinite pain, and l wouldn't want that. You'd have to die. Sorry.

I demonstrated why war is the only possibility, by asking you to lower your guard and live in harmony with me as a fellow deity. Then evilly smirking behind your back. The material world has its roots in finite quantity (infinite quantity = 1 God, no materialism there), which has its roots in anything beyond the number 1. Unity = God. Anything other than one God = materialism = endless war.

You say it's possible for mutliple deities to live in peace because you can conceive of it.

But you cannot fully conceive of it as you are not infinite. Nor am l but l can give trenchant arguments as to why it will result in war e.g. can you trust me, forever? Really? If so, then you're a fool for trusting me and as you are a fool, you will die because you are thus weaker than me, unless this was your ploy all along and you will exit stage, then sneak around the back and kill me whilst l'm still smirking to myself at your idiocy, proving me to be the real idiot.

So really, can you trust me forever? Yes or no, either way, you die. Or l die.

"You die or i die" sounds like war to me.

Or hey, let's go by actual human experience. Still waiting for infinite peace to kick in after World War 1? What precedent is there, in human history, for lasting peace? Where are you getting the idea of infinite harmony between more than 1 deity from?

Multiple infinite deities will not be materialistic because they are infinite? But actual infinity = everything, already. How can you add a deity to that?


Re: we cannot be real, l've explained this already.

Define: "Actual infinity".

An infinite quantity that is tangible to our senses e.g. infinite energy.

Omnipresent would mean infinite latent energy which would mean omnipotent. Energy is tangible, and thus we are are really talking about an actual infinite God, God being that which is actually infinite.

There is no reason to believe that omnipotence and omnipresence = constant war with any other omnipotent, omnipresent being. It is very easy to imagine the existence of 2 omnipotent omnipresent beings working in tandom without any warring

Yes, brother deity, let's work together, in harmony, without any warring. *Evil Smirks*

In a world with more than one God, the ONLY possibility is war. It is no longer pathological it is virtuous to murder the rival deities. Maybe draw it out by raping their offspring's wives and romancing statues etc. as per the pagan pantheons of old. But ultimately, kill all the others. It's the only way to be sure.

Also, if there truly was one God then as you said, there should be no war and there should be constant bliss. But clearly, that's not the case. What about murder? What about nuclear weapons, wars, genocides?

Give me some credit :) I know these things exist. We are not deities though. I am talking about war between deities.

Also, as l've explained, we cannot be real (well, l'm sure our souls, our essences, are real, but these are of God's soul), so much for interpersonal murders and whatnot.

I don't know if you count the Islamic concept of God, but it is part of the system of Abrahamic religions.

So, incorporating that, l would say:

- The Judaeo-Christian God is flawed and perhaps you are feeling the flaws reverbrating in the idea of hell

- It is flawed e.g. in that the NT says God is love. God is not love. Love implies a beloved, yet God is not contingent on anything, and thus God doesn't need a beloved, thus God is not love. Love is the taste of God's presence because God is perfect, thus needs nothing, and there are no other deities thus no war, thus perfection and peace are direct exponents of his existence, his existence being known to us as his presence, experienced by us as Love (hence love is transcendant, because we ascent, toward God's presence, God's existence, God's reality).

- Islam teaches God loves us more than our own mothers, and that he created love, such that even a deer would try not to trample its own babies, and also: God sends people to hell and doesn't care, and sends people to heaven and doesn't care.

Contradictory? Consider though, that God is an actual infinite being, and thus has infinite levels. Even if God were merely sky-high, you'd be able to appreciate that on a rainy day, it can all be blazing glory above the cloud cover, it can be both these contradictory things simultaneously, just different layers.

Unfortunately the Christian anthropomorphism isn't conducive toward getting the true height of God across, thus simultaneous love and hell bamboozle the casual observer who is expecting something man-sized, monolithic.

- Also consider that as God is actual infinity, nothing but him really exists. So, our souls would be pinched off from his but ultimately, all one soul, there's nothing else but actual infinity, which in itself is perfect as it needs nothing new. (in other words, God is fine sending people to heaven / hell, whatever)

Ethics = ground-level morality, a sort of secular morality.

There are big differences that come to light in some situations e.g. when people say "sure it's ethical - but not moral!".

So my points are:
- Religiosity and secularism are not incompatible (in fact the Muslim Ibn Rushd is thought by some to be the father of modern secularism, though Wikipedia as usual dumbs it down.)
- Organised religion and secularism are incompatible, but relax, it's organised religion that bows out - if only for the sake of tax credits.
- I have religiosity and l am firmly secularist
- Secular laws didn't appear ex nihilo, they came from religious laws, which are perfectly moral laws, or at least were, before the Weirdy Beardy clique added creepy introductions into the tampered texts. You know, all that O.T.T. stuff in the O.T.
- If you want to feel outrage, maybe start with stuff that is ethical and thus legal under secular law, but l'm guessing contrary to your own morals, e.g. bedding an animal and its offspring at the same time, then eating one or both of them, which also counts as cheating on one's neice aka one's wife who hasn't actually reached puberty yet. I believe this scenario is actually legal in some states, but you may need to cross state lines to complete the bucket list challenge.

Hi there, I have not gone off topic, l have tackled your query (re: can there be multiple omnipresent beings?) head on and resolved it through reason, and thus have demonstrated how multiple omnipresent beings are not possible. I don't feel l've made only a defence of God that is somehow off-topic, l feel l have been cogent and successful in my argument.

I have satisfied your query about whether multiple omnipresent beings can exist, by extrapolating that (at least, in an infinite setting) an ominpresent being will also be omnipotent, and thus that being will be actual infinity, and thus that being will be God.

I then went on to say that God being actual infinity, is perfect because he is everything, therefore nothign is lacking.

Nothing is lacking, thus no need for an extra deity, nor will it even be logically possible to add an extra deity to actual infinity.

At a tangent to this, l showed that the existence of love points to one God, because mutliple Gods = endless war, whereas Love is both transcendant and peaceful, which can only be an exponent of one God, because that one actually infinite God will be perfect (being actual infinity) and at peace (being the only one, hence no wars) i.e. bliss.

Few people wold fit your definition of atheist, because it conveys a certainty that most would consider unwarrantable.
I agree it seems unfair doesn't it, that i attribute the foolhardy self-assured certainty to Atheism whilst giving Theism a disclaimer that Theists don't claim to know, they merely believe.

However, consider:
- Islamic texts specifically call the religious folk "Moomins" = believers - not knowers.
- I think there is a clear precedent in calling adherents of other religions "Believers" too.
- Also, religions are commonly known as "Faiths" and the adherents are "the Faithful".

So, it's clear that the Theist stance is uncertain belief.

Atheists may claim uncertainty too. Maybe l'm letting my bad experiences speak but it seems that many Atheists act as if they know God does not exist. I'd have thought many Atheists would be pleased with being assigned that stance.

However, maybe l should be equitable and say Atheism = I've looked into the arguments / counterarguments, and l profess with my lips that there is NO God, but l don't know it, l just believe so.

Better?






The agnostic label was coined by Huxley, and adopted by Russell and others. The etymology is "not knowing", so it is taken to refer to anyone who doesn't know if there is a god (or gods).
And recently: It got revised by me

Btw, as l've shown, becuase God/No-God are unfalsifiable, the literal meaning of agnostic is not fit for purpose, lo! it is the starting point of each of my definitions of Theist / Atheist / Agnostic.



One could be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. It is problematic to use "agnostic" to label those who believe there is exactly a 50% epistemic probability of god(s) - who can really calculate such a thing?
Agnosticism would be measured by feelings for both camps being perfectly stacked l suppose. That's why feelings hold sway in the agnostic position.

In any case, all the more reason to ditch the whole Agnostic label. How do you measure feelings? Maybe when they are perfectly stacked against each other there's a special case where you actually can measure feelings, just as during an eclipse the moon perfectly slides over the sun, their discs appearing the same size, perfectly matched, and suddenly you see the corona.

But when does that happen in Agnosticism? It doesn't.

You can see for yourself Agnosticism is new fangled, probably hitherto unknown in reli philo because it doesn't stand to reason, such a fine line is impossible for a rational higher being such as humans are, with their overarching sense of aesthetic - and still nothing to sway them either way between Atheism and Theism?



The principle of indifference is problematic because it depends on how you break down the unknowns. It is problematic to propose a trichotomy (atheist-agnostic-theist) because the boundaries would be vague.

No longer vague: it's what the lips profess, anterior to the raging debate that led to the professing. Simple!

Hi again there bro' fro' ano' mo', it's cool that you disagree as you're accompanying it with reasoning.

So anyway:

You said:
Changing the definition of a term doesn't change anything about the debate. It just means that instead of being able to call myself an agnostic theist I have to say that I believe in God but that this can only be as a matter of faith because there are no arguments or empirical evidence that can show God to exist (or not exist).

It's a pointless redefinition.

I think l know your issue here: you are saying that by redefining, l am making a circular argument.

I agree: Antics with semantics have no place in debate.

Exception: when the debate is actually about semantics. So, l'm redefining a term, so l am absolved of the crime of circular reasoning, because that's what definitions are.

God / No-God is unfalsifiable yes, but you still have a vast backdrop of arguments / evidence for God existing.

Maybe you have evidence against too e.g. God allowed me to massacre a section of my gut bacteria while the other bacteria were forced to look on, how can a loving God alow this. Of course that is not evidence against God, because it is non sequitur that God has to dislike / like stuff. In fact, consider that nothing but God actually exists.

Failing evidence against God's existence, maybe you can have a vague sense of resentment toward God (as l often have).

So, sans proof either way, we have arguments, evidence, and utlimately: our royal prerogative, our fellings.


As an Agnostic Theist, you are now what you profess in your rites: e.g. Lo! We are helpers of Christ. (= you are now just "Theist")
Privately, you may have a crisis in faith? Or maybe you're have a really good day faithwise.

The good thing is, your crisis in faith is no longer ringfenced from critique, because it was part of your identity. Now, your identity is your lip profession (Theism), anterior to the debate.

Your reasoning is now separate, and thus open to debate. SO, my new system at once simplifies the labels, and encourages them to be debated (or attacked, if you will).

Sorry, i've really tried to understand you, but l cannot due to either something being left out of your sentences and/or the sentence structure. Goodbye. Peace :)

Hi there,

I believe my redefinitions are anything but vicious, l have explained their merits, i.e.:

- They encourage profession of belief after reasonable debate, because such is the re-definition
- They leave the debate ongoing
- They acknowledge that the debate is ongoing
- They acknowledge the unfalsifiability of Theism/Atheism


The existing defintions do no such thing.

Hi there, l did not read your other posts. I was just talking about God being actually perfect. My post was self contained.

Ok let me state again: What can else can there be: God actually exists, God actually does not exist.

What other stable option is there?

I'm sorry but l don't feel you are countering my reasoning. You are not tackling my points. Sorry, goodbye :) Peace

I believe it's contradictory because in my scheme:
Agnosticism = either way, l cannot decide, though l've tried to
Atheism = I've considered the options, and l bear witness that there is no God

Thus there is a contradiction in bringing the two together

Please can you tackle my arguments.

Hi this is a separate debate entirely. Also l'm not even sure what you are talking about.

I believe you are telling me l cannot prove God exists. However, as per the OP, my redefenitions are predicated on precisely accepting the unfalisifiability of God / No-God.

It solves the following (as per the OP):

- We have many different, often contradictory viewpoints in mind. These view points are often changing in their levels day to day, hour by hour.

Labelling onesself by putting all our different viewpoints into one chimaeric appellation is inelegant. Moreover, with terms such as Agnostic Atheist, it becomes contradictory.

Also, take terms such as "Hard / Soft Atheist". OK fair enough it tells you what you can expect of a person. But it also seals off debate.

What i do is reduce the label to the simplest aspect: lip profession (profession of faith is important in Islam, it's one of the five pillars, but also Muslims make a profession of faith before embarking on any big thing, including the slaughter of animals for food).

That leaves the bourgeoning debate behind the lip profession still open to debate. Still able to grow. Whereas the current style is to make a person's label a thought terminating cliche. A hard atheist, a soft atheist, an atheist agnostic. No further debate possible. However, if a person is called a Believer, they acknowledge the unfalisifiability of their conviction that Theism is correct, and when we reduce the labels to lip profession, we also leave open debate.

I am redefning the meanings, to bring clarity to a vast body of debate. You are replying that l am a deviant and l should get back with orthodoxy. We all know how that goes.

Hi there, it is black and white and your analogy is false.

Space contains things such as what we call space, plus dust, plus stars, planets, and so on.
However, God being omnipresent, omnipotent & actually infinite, is primordial, and there is nothing but him. Therefore you cannot analogise his existence with something (our visible universe) that exists as a frozen thought within him.

Furthermore, space has many different things, whereas the plane of our discussion: "God exists or not?" - is defined as two possibilities. There is no middle ground in the definition, nor can there be.

Hi i'm sorry but your reply to my reply either contains no counter reason (e.g. where you say a finite universe is NOT crazy, it just isn't crazy, without explaining why. It IS crazy because there can be no border between something and nothing, as l've explained. The intrusion of nothing - the impossible - into something, is the definition of the untenable, the absurd, the crazy)

or (when you talk about finite points, and so on) literally, grammatically, makes no sense. Please re-state.

My redefinitions work better. They are more elegant, hence l proposed them and explained them in great detail. I need not learn anytihng, maybe you could learn my OP. Please don't arrogantly tell people to go learn the truth of your viewpoint, rather than argue it out and so prove it.

Please do not reply with a yet more inflammatory post, either reason it out, or l shall not discuss with you because anything beyond that is ego-war. Peace :)

All you are doing is scoffing. I shall therefore no longer reply to you. Peace :)

I've already answered this in previous posts, l believe this is still all on page 1 so still accessible :) Peace

"Ok, within that context what's the problem with objectively aknowledging the difference between one's beliefs and knowledge?"
What?

Let me explain again: We cannot ourselves prove that God exists or not therefore God / Atheism are unfalsifiable beliefs. That is taken for granted in all of my arguments in the OP.

Atheists claim God does not exist. Therefore Atheism is unscientific.



"Does not follow. When you redefine terms it's like creating a new language: you have to translate the terms. Example:

I define "your" as "the smell of" and "opinion" as "the smell of purple". Therefore, your opinions are incoherent and their existence paradoxal."

Reductio ad absurdum. Not that you've reduced by logic a thing to its absurd core, but rather, you've used an absurdity and applied it to a logical statement, then declared it to be illogical.

I am NOT making random substitutions as you are in your example. I have reasoned my redefenitions out. My redefenitions cut through the morass of complexity that currently surrounds the terms and simplifies them, separating the dialogue around them, from the person commenting on them.



"Not if it's the logical conclusion.

Do I have a beard? I say I do because 2+2=5 AND that's false, although also true, and you can derive the conclusion from contradiction. Is your rejection of this reasoning apathy?"

Again reductio ad absurdum. I have also already explained the folly in agnosticism, in a post directed to you, you have yet to counter that. You are not reading my replies.

I have literally answered everything you have re-stated. Think of when two arguments are perfectly matched, there yet remains one's feelings on the matter. Also, as l've said, either God exists or not, there is no actual middle ground, the middle ground is only when the two camps are perfectly balanced, regarding which, l've already explained: where are a person's feelings on the matter?

As you are causing repetition of my arguments directly given to you, by ignoring them and just re-stating your own, l shall therefore not answer your further posts. Sorry. Peace :)

When l say Atheists know that they cannot scientifically dismiss God, l mean in the context of falsifiability, they cannot dismiss God. The scientific method is based on theorising & falsifiability, no?

Next:
So i'm judging with regard to my own redefinitions? Yes, hence l made this thread.

Next:
Rejecting every argument of both sides is apathy not agnosticism. Either God exists or does not exist, so there is no middle ground, as we are talking about absolutes.

Next:
Aesthetic inclination - pah?
Look at it this way: l have redefined Ag/Ath/Theism as lip profession, no longer about the backend processing that leads up to the lip profession. Therefore the backend stuff is free to be aesthetic preferences or whatever. It's all so simple now.

Furthermore, Religious inspiration is on the same stratum as aesthetics.

Furthermore, because Ath / Theism are unfalisifiable, what remains after all is said and done is: what moves you? Hence, has the Agnostic at least no feeling on the matter? Should they , though? Yes, because they are, as you so tout, rational beings, not stones or trees or even sheep for that matter. Where's that aesthetic feeling, the highest expression of the rational mind?

Hi there, theism is theism, no? And atheism is atheism. So, an agnostic new atheist with nasal embolism is just a person that exists along a lot of different axes. Ask them how goes it. Their answer - that specific reply, that lip profession - is their sum belief, not the many different things going on in the background.

In fact it appears you're agreeing with me?

Lacking a belief either way, sans any dialogue, is apathy. It is beyond the discussion. For example, a tree is not agnostic, it would merely have apathy or no opinion.

As for dialogue and *then* Agnosticism: ok l edit myself: if both camps have been faithfully presented in their fullest, then the Agnostic has no excuse to be Agnostic, there must be an inclination one way, however slight.

So, consider that both camps will likely not be fully summarised and the search for answers may span a lifetime, a person may say "for now, l am Agnostic". Still, that's in line with my OP. It's about what the lips profess.


Re: agnosticism = the knowability of God, maybe that is the current definition but it is erratic because:
- the debate about the knowability of God won't exist without the person giving the views lip service
- it should be a pre-requisite that belief in God is unfalsifiable


Re: strong & weak atheism: you see this is what l'm talking about. It crushes everything and puts it all on the same plane, whereas my system separates the arguments - which are many and complex - from the current lip profession. The current lip profession of a person is what makes them Atheist or Theist or even Agnostic. Simple, elegant.

No one will follow your reasoning. No one will care. — Grey Vs Gray

Please keep it civil, and understand that the same could be said of your words. Also note that Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy.

Of course your concept will influence people but ultimately their understanding of the words has to do with their experience and current attitude of a god. — Grey Vs Gray

I suspect you completely missed the point of the OP. I am talking about the definition of the words used to represent attitudes, not the attitudes themselves, except maybe near the end where l discuss how Agnosticism and Atheist Agnosticism are both untenable & the field should be between Atheism and Theism only.

What an atheist will say is (what I am): You claim that there is a god? Wow that is amazing, but where is the proof? (The argument or lack there of is given and their attitude is unchanged.) Oh, we'll I don't believe that, I am not convinced. I am an atheist.

What a theist will say: The universe was created, I just can't conceive of it starting from nothing. Nothing can't come from nothing. There must be a god.

What a dogmatic theist will say: My god is the real god, everyone else is wrong and will suffer forever if they don't believe. I want to impose my beliefs because they are right. There is one true god. — Grey Vs Gray

I have covered all this, regardless your misrepresentation of each camp.
Current usage: take all different thoughts fielded within one cranium. Create a chimaeric term to represent all of them under one banner e.g. "dogmatic agnostic atheist with suprachiasmal leanings."

My proposal: It is about what they say, the lip profession of belief, that defines which camp one is in, e.g. "Therefore, there is no God / there is a God".

What an agnostic will say: The universe could have been created. I don't know. The universe could also have come to be from something else or nothing. Who knows. Is this really important? We don't have enough information to believe either, why be so convinced either way and argue over something no one can prove for a long time yet if at all.

Of course the agnostic position is real, there is a spectral distribution of every human attribute. — Grey Vs Gray

I can no longer make excuses for you, you really have not read the OP. I have already covered this in the OP. Please re-read the OP.

shorthand for actual infinity, the focus of my post

The omnipresent would be the omnipotent, e.g. because of the amount of latent energy present (infnite energy). Omnipresent + omnipotent = infinite actual.

An actually infinite being is perfect, you cannot add to it, it has everything already, nor would it need anything more, it's perfect.

Also, it is impossible to think that two gods could co-exist, one would kill the other, maybe feign a truce that lasts a trillionth of a femtosecond, and then one stabs the other in the back.

Love is of God because God is inifnite and one, therefore there's no hostility, all is peace. Love is the taste of an infinite actual lone God.

My point is: If there were more than one God, there would be mutual annihilation or at least constant war. The mere existence of Love proves this not to be the case. Also as l said: infinity is perfect, it already contains everything, needs nothing extra.

^^^^ at least 2 contradictions for multiple omnipotent beings, off the top of my head for you :))

Hi there, l refute the two arguments in the OP:

* Can't reach infinity, so actual infinity is impossible
Answer: impossible for you to attain to yes, therefore actual infinity is preeminent & the primordial state. That's also a powerful argument for the Big Bang Universe being finite. One doesn't just grow into infinity. [ofc a finite universe is impossible, because it'd have borders with nothingness, which is the logical definition of crazy, absurd - all that really exists is the primordial state, which is actual infinity i.e. BBT is true & proves universe is imaginary]

* Zeno's Paradox: No problem, Achilles takes however many steps to reach the tortoise. "Infinitely small" is defined as being within those steps, i.e. it's predicated on those steps being made. SO ... let the steps be made. No problemo!


[It's not that actual infinity is being achieved by Achilles. The divisions are conceptual, or at the very least, they aren't one distance, therefore they aren't an infinite distance, therefore Achilles isn't crossing an infinite distance. It's infinite conceptual divisions, moreover, each division keeps reducing the distance. So, linguistically (?) speaking: an (an = one) infinite distance (it's not a measure of distance) is NOT being crossed by Achilles. Now, have Achilles stop to catalogue the infinite subdivisions - forget Planck - that would be attaining to actual infinity. I believe in an actual infinity btw!]