As I will say it is reasonable to believe in a non contingent or necessary being is. — Rank Amateur
All explanation, consists in trying to find something simple and ultimate on which everything else depends. And I think that by rational inference what we can get to that’s simple and ultimate is God. But it’s not logically necessary that there should be a God. The supposition ‘there is no God’ contains no contradiction. — Richard Swinburne (2009)
It's odd because you've conflated my post with some other belief and put words in my mouth that I never said.Odd though, because people with Harry's other Fundamentalist beliefs and tendencies would typically have a lot to say about describing and defining their deity, and would take any opportunity to do so. — Michael Ossipoff
But I said that they are indescribable and undefinable, so how do you know I was talking about some anthropomorphic notion of creation? Again, you go and put words in my mouth because you just don't want to face the fact that your own arguments are nonsensical. That is the whole point of the "Humpalumps". Haven't you gone and done the same thing you have accused me of doing - of rejecting your own notion and definition of what a "Humpalump" is, not mine? If I never define "Humpalumps" for you, then you only ever reject your own notion of what a Humpalump is. Do you see the problem with your position now?Harry likewise believes in the antrhopmorphic notion of creation, further distancing him from anyone that I agree with. — Michael Ossipoff
How do you know that other people's beliefs in something indescribable and undefinable is a "theism"? You have a big problem of putting your words in other people's mouths.I take your word for that, and accept the situation as you describe it: To the best of your knowledge, all the Theisms that you know of are ones for which you aren't aware of evidence. ...and for which you likewise aren't aware of any other justification for faith. — Michael Ossipoff
Therefore it is a fact that God is not — Rank Amateur
- 14 billion years of entropy mean god must be dead — Devans99
It's only fair that everyone get's the chance to discover God, and not those who are lucky to posses certain qualities. Is God unfair? — Purple Pond
So you have intelligent and rational people accepting the existence of God by the mere fact they possess the qualities of being intelligent and rational. But what about those people who don't possess those qualities and are not smart enough to understand and accept theistic arguments — Purple Pond
Basic facts of life like the difference between right and wrong are shared by all logical entities. Its natural for Logical entities will tend to exhibit some empathy with each other. At the core, humans maybe just very simple versions of God...Why would God be anything like us, or care whether we argued for it's existence? — Marchesk
.and put words in my mouth that I never said.
.”Harry likewise believes in the antrhopmorphic notion of creation, further distancing him from anyone that I agree with.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
But I said that they are indescribable and undefinable, so how do you know I was talking about some anthropomorphic notion of creation?
.Again, you go and put words in my mouth
.because you just don't want to face the fact that your own arguments are nonsensical.
.That is the whole point of the "Humpalumps". Haven't you gone and done the same thing you have accused me of doing - of rejecting your own notion and definition of what a "Humpalump" is, not mine?
.If I never define "Humpalumps" for you, then you only ever reject your own notion of what a Humpalump is. Do you see the problem with your position now?
.Another possibility is that we are both talking about the same thing, but we are just using different terms to refer to that thing. What some would call a "god" or "humpalumps", I would use the term, "reality" or "universe" to refer to it.
.It is you that has limited your possibilities, not I.
.I am willing to accept any explanation that makes sense.
.You are only willing to accept one - that there is something that YOU call a "god" that exists.
.I accept all other possibilities except that one. So who is the one that is really unacceptable [He means “unaccepting] of possible truths? You are.
.Also claiming that something is indescribable or undefinable is basically saying that it doesn't exist.
.If something like that could exist, then it would be pointless to discuss it.
.What effect could it have on the world, or on what we can observe?
.If it has a causal relationship with the universe (it can observe us and has knowledge of us), then it has definable and describable qualities. If not, then who cares about it? There could be so many other indescribable and undefinable possibilities that aren't a "god".
How do you know that other people's beliefs in something indescribable and undefinable is a "theism"? — Harry Hindu
How about this? To the best of my knowledge, all theisms of which I have examined enough to reach the conclusion that they're lacking evidence strong enough to warrant belief are indeed lacking evidence strong enough to warrant belief.
Now it's on you to either present an exception, that is, present a case of theism with evidence strong enough to warrant belief, or, alternatively, accept the situation as it is. — S
The point being that, under the assumption that there's an exception of which I'm not aware, and of which you are aware, it's on you to present it, not on me to refute all possible variations of theism. If Harry has claimed what you have said he has claimed, then yes, I agree with you that he has that burden, but not otherwise.
You should be able to quote him saying that, if he has said what you claim. — S
t it's open to debate. I am not fully convinced of physicalism, but nor am I convinced that you can justifiably write it off. I don't believe that you're capable of demonstrating a counterexample; that is, that there exists something which is not physical, or does not supervene on the physical. — S
Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. — The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy — S
Okie dokie. Anyway, I have bad news for you. If reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that you've been describing here, then, off the bat, there must be something wrong with the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that you've've been describing here, because reincarnation is just a fiction. — S
No. You have a bad habit of doing the things that you accuse others of doing. I have never mentioned materialism nor used the term physical.Let me guess: Is Harry a firm believer in Materialism? …a believer in the brute-fact of an objectively existent and objectively real (whatever that would mean) physical universe that is the fundamental reality, and is all of reality, and is the metaphysically-prior basis on which all else “supervenes”? — Michael Ossipoff
a non contingent or necessary being is one who's existence is not contingent on anything, and is necessary for the existence of everything else. — Rank Amateur
.”Let me guess: Is Harry a firm believer in Materialism? …a believer in the brute-fact of an objectively existent and objectively real (whatever that would mean) physical universe that is the fundamental reality, and is all of reality, and is the metaphysically-prior basis on which all else “supervenes”? ” — Michael Ossipoff
.
No. You have a bad habit of doing the things that you accuse others of doing. I have never mentioned materialism nor used the term physical.
.
Of course you don't want to explain your beliefs because that would expose them to criticism.
.By not being able to define what you believe…
.…implies that you don't believe anything, or at least anything substantive or worth discussing.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.