751. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284905 by Wosret on November 16, 2008 at 7:18 am

775. Comment #284904 by Steve Zara

Not if we demand that it meet a set of epistemic criteria. With ontology, we can be lead to believe things exist by pure reason, e.g. theological ontological arguments.

Ontological arguments can be formulated without first demonstrating the existence of the subject.

752. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284902 by Wosret on November 16, 2008 at 7:03 am

I see no real use for ontology and metaphysics. I think that the important stuff, that has application can be all covered with epistemology. I haven't read a lot about them, but that is at least my first impression of them.

753. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284899 by Wosret on November 16, 2008 at 6:56 am

770. Comment #284897 by Steve Zara

Damn, you really can read fast. My reading speed is under average because I'm dyslexic. I can get five hundred words per minute if I rush, which I don't do. I probably more rest at half that. My reading comprehension and retention is over average though.

Kind of annoying though. I read all fucking day, and I can't improve my speed.

754. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284896 by Wosret on November 16, 2008 at 6:48 am

766. Comment #284892 by Steve Zara

If he states "everything is maps", then I have to take that as it is and not second-guess.

You mean like "kicking" and "pointing at"? I really think that there is a lot of time in a conversation wasted when the most reasonable interpretation of what someone says is not used. If you think that Bonzai is intelligent, then you should try to get the most reasonable meaning out of what he says. Not take it rigidly when it will make it unreasonable.

Later on, the point is made that as we can only interpret reality through maps, talk of reality without maps is "mystic".

I think that that is different than saying this:

Because some physical reality is used to select which maps are useful, then we can clearly talk about there being a reality that is there whether or not we have maps of it.

I think that you're right that we can talk of a reality existing separate and without maps, but I don't think that we can talk about reality without maps. That is different. One is mere allusion, the other requires some form of description.

I am afraid that, to me, Bonzai's position seems to be a horribly confused combination of dualism and reification, with no clear understanding of what "exists" or "reality" means (I hgld a similar position years ago).

With all do respect Steve, Bonzai just contested that you do in fact understand his position. So -- while attempting to avoid coming off as a dick -- don't you think that it may be more constructive to assume that maybe you don't quite grasp what he is saying, and to first confirm that you understand what he means through further inquiry before you wage criticisms against it?

I don't quite know what he's saying yet either, so I don't know whether I agree or not. If you're right about what he's saying, then I agree with you, but if I'm right in my assumptions, I think that there is something to consider. Because I have respect for Bonzai's intellect, I will assume the best until I am more than confident of what he means. Which will happen when he says "yes, that is what I mean" with regard to my rephrasing of what I think his position is to him in question form.

I hope that I don't come off as patronizing in this post, as I fear that I will. I don't know how I can say this without risk of insulting your intellect, Steve, and I apologize in advance.

755. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284890 by Wosret on November 16, 2008 at 6:27 am

764. Comment #284889 by Steve Zara

I think that he means everything that we operate on are maps, Steve. We never get to look at anything except maps.

So in this sense, everything is a map. We infer that the maps are of stuff that actually occupies reality, but we never actually get to see it.

756. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284887 by Wosret on November 16, 2008 at 6:13 am

760. Comment #284882 by Bonzai

I find what you are saying deeply fascinating, if I understand you correctly.

I know that you are gone, but I would like to ask a couple questions -- for when you return:

Are you saying that we have different levels of descriptions, or "maps" and there is no reason that the description at the level of our perception should take precedence?

For instance, we have an apple, and then there are several ways that you could describe this object, and on several different levels of description? We could construct several different types of maps. Then which map is best? The one that best conforms to our intuition, and perception, or "middle world" as you put it?

I am still unclear on your contention. Are you proposing that it is possible to have "map" that offers the most accurate/useful/predictive description, but does not conform to the physical parameters we would expect of a proper object, so we have a quandary? From this are you suggesting that it is not so obvious, or apparent when the rubble meets the road, as it were?

I look forward to further expatiation.

757. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284873 by Wosret on November 16, 2008 at 4:03 am

756. Comment #284871 by Steve Zara

...only things our ape-brains can understand.

Dunno. I think that my ape brain is pretty good. Way better than a monkey brain, or a cat brain. My brain rules the brainosphere.

758. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284793 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 7:22 pm

725. Comment #284790 by Dianelos Georgoudis

One proves negatives all the time. I can easily explain why I believe there is no greatest prime number, or why there aren't fairies in the garden, or why there isn't a teapot orbiting Jupiter, or why no nuclear explosion took place over my home, and so on and so forth.

The parameters of the entities or events need to be such that they allow for falsification before this is possible. Supernatural entities by definition are not in such a class that they are possible of being falsified.

These are false analogies.

759. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284788 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 7:13 pm

256. Comment #284782 by phasmagigas

I often wonder about the utility of that. Since I can't seem to go five seconds without worrying about dropping dead of something, or developing a terrible medical issue, or just plain knowing I'll die -- I sometimes wonder if it would be easier if I had just convinced myself that it's all good, I'll survive my own death, and it will all turn out in the end in my favor.

I wonder if it offsets any stress, or fear, or if they still -- on some intuitive, or primal level -- know that death is the final curtain, and it will not end well at all for us. We will all invariably meet with tragedy.

760. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284776 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 6:50 pm

251. Comment #284771 by paulb

What? Eternal life? Universal justice? Super-magic-powers? Yeah, I'd hate all that. I'd much prefer living in a universe that is indifferent to my survival in a cruel and ruthless world until I eventually die (hopefully not untimely) and then my existence concludes and I rot in the ground (I am actually getting cremated. I think that graves take up valuable space).

It is just plain silly to say that an atheistic world view is more appealing. Some people may think that it is, but I definitely wished I lived in a universe that was far more like fantasy, with magic, and eternal life, and universal justice.

I just don't, and wishing I did isn't going to change my state of affairs.

761. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284769 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 6:40 pm

248. Comment #284764 by paulb

Frankly you're not making sense, but I don't care.

What I do care about is seeing if you now understand what RD was doing. To see you admit that there was no contradiction in his actions. Whether you agree with the argument or not, you must at least accept that he did not make the false steps that you accused him of.

762. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284763 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 6:35 pm

716. Comment #284761 by Dianelos Georgoudis

I don't know. I'm not a scientist, and I didn't pick which models do what. That is a question for the experts in the fields, not for me.

Good question though. I would imagine that it has a several books answer.

763. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284749 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 6:19 pm

710. Comment #284743 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Sure. And you think that evidences that my consciousness is produced by my brain? If my consciousness is produced by a computer simulation is there any reason why I wouldn't also get drunk when I have beers?

Huh?

764. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284740 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 6:09 pm

239. Comment #284737 by paulb

No, the argument originates with Cicero, but the most famous form is from Paley. I have not misrepresented them.

What your favorite form of the argument is is immaterial (I haven't even heard that form before, and it seems incoherent to me). Which Lennox was using is what matters. RD used that rebuttal to rebut Lennox's trotting out of the teleological argument.

You must now appreciate your mistake?

765. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284736 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 6:03 pm

704. Comment #284730 by decius

It's not a commitment. Saying that you think something is true doesn't mean that you think it with absolutely certainty.

Even to say that I "know" X is only really epistemological equivalent to saying that I have a justified, true belief in X. It doesn't mean that it is not possible that X will be false, or that the fact that X is possible of being false that my belief in it was not justified.

I'm tempted to call all of what you have just said empty gestures, but I will accept that maybe you do hold just ridged and impossible to meet epistemic criteria for belief. In which case I will just say that I think they need to be reexamined for practicality. If there is no discernible difference between how you would behave in any given circumstance, to any given information, or argument than you would if you believed there were no gods -- then I think that your position is of zero consequence beyond an argumentative advantage. In which case, it makes me question the motivation for holding it.

766. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284729 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 5:48 pm

234. Comment #284725 by Steve Zara

What paulb doesn't seem to grasp is that the specific, and only point to the "then who created god" argument is to rebut the teleological argument. This is the rebuttal RD always uses to the teleological argument, because it devastatingly demolishes it. He doesn't just ask "who created god" out of the blue, he always uses it in this context.

767. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284726 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 5:46 pm

231. Comment #284722 by Steve Zara

Yes, if it has logical problems, then it cannot exist.

768. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284724 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 5:43 pm

230. Comment #284720 by paulb

No, you don't understand. The teleological argument conflicts with an "uncreated god". They can't both me true. The theist can only have one.

The teleological argument is that the complexity, and intricacy of the universe necessitates that it was designed. God must be even more complex and intricate than the universe, thus by the logic of the teleological argument, god must also be designed.

The theist cannot have both. They either must concede that god was designed, or that complexity and intricacy does not necessitate design.

This is the point behind the argument. I can -- without contradiction -- accept your definition of god as uncreated, and still use this argument to demolish the teleological argument.

Do you now understand?

769. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284721 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 5:36 pm

701. Comment #284718 by decius

That doesn't answer my question. My question was: "Do you as a matter of fact believe that no gods exist? Or no?"

770. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284714 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 5:23 pm

697. Comment #284709 by decius

Do you as a matter of fact believe that no gods exist? Or no?

If you do then I think that your tentativeness is feigned for the sake of argument.

I don't deny that the evidence against god(s) is circumstantial, but I think that it is enough to convict.

771. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284701 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 4:46 pm

224. Comment #284694 by paulb

The argument isn't meant to disprove god, it is meant to rebut the teleological argument.

Your ignoring of this is frankly intellectually dishonest. You have merely straw-maned what RD has said, and now are dogmatically arguing against a position you continually fail to grasp, and are unwilling to even acknowledge.

772. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284699 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 4:39 pm

692. Comment #284693 by alan baylis

To interpret him charitably -- as I like to do -- I think that he only meant that in order to disbelieve in something you need to know what is being talked about. You need to have an understanding of the concept. You must have beliefs about what the concept means, and entails.

Otherwise how can you say that you disbelief something, when you don't even know what is being talked about?

773. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284695 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 4:34 pm

691. Comment #284692 by Dianelos Georgoudis

I am just pointing out how peoples' presuppositions about what existence means or about what is required for existence lead them to believe there is lack of evidence for God. By explicitly writing down the implications of such presuppositions I hopefully show how absurd such presuppositions are.

Point to someone here making the argument that you concocted.

Sorry about that, perhaps I missed it. Can you point out the number of the comment where you presented your argument?

Comment 551 is a good one to start with.

So it seems I have not really misinterpreted him, as you thought.

Yes you have, and I think wantonly. Again you conflate two very different things. You took his "point to" and "kick" literally, and used those as premises in absurd syllogisms. The former after he had specified what he meant by "kick" and "point to". Saying that "physical existence" is all is not the same as what you have caricatured him as saying.

774. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284687 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 4:09 pm

681. Comment #284673 by decius

I think that he is right about the definition. I think that it is a definition that people use to attack without having to defend.

I don't just lack a belief in gods. I positively believe that there are none. A theist's failure to demonstrate gods does not justify my position. That would be a negative proof fallacy.

I am ready and willing to argue why I am confident, that as a matter of fact, no gods exist.

I think that people around here certainly talk as if they are just as confident as I am that no gods exist, so I think that saying they just lack a belief in them is disingenuous, and for the sake of argument only. Clearly, like me, you all harbor the conviction that there, in fact, are no gods. This is a positive assertion, and cannot be defended by shifting the burden of proof.

775. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284652 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 2:47 pm

When my arguments go unaddressed I consider it silent concession.

776. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284580 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 1:01 pm

My criticism of the sorts of undetectable and unknowable is two fold, as I outlined it before. I don't know that such a class of things don't exist -- by definition I can't know -- but then also by definition, neither does anyone else.

If people claim to know about such things, then it is knowable and detectable, or they are charlatans. So from this, every claim which includes knowledge of such things is false by virtue of the parameters of the things being claimed to be known about.

Thus I can affirm that no gods, spirits, immaterial, incorporeal specific things anyone ever claims are false, without ever over-stepping my knowledge bounds.

They can't have both. Either it is detectable and knowable, or they don't know about them, and thus is it a truism that any of their specific claims are false.

777. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284571 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 12:48 pm

618. Comment #284562 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Why are you concocting all of these arguments and attributing them to atheists? I made mine, and argued for it, it went ignored. Address arguments people make, don't invent them and say that you think atheists probably think that.

Also, conversational charity is interpreting people's words as reasonably as you can...not as absurdly as you can. I think that interpreting what someone has said literally when it makes it absurd is plain intellectually dishonest.

If you can only think of absurd ways to interpret what they have said, then ask follow ups, don't just assume they must be saying something absurd. How can you say that Steve is intelligent, and yet interpret him as saying something that is clearly absurd to any fool?

778. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284566 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 12:42 pm

617. Comment #284561 by Steve Zara

I've being reminded of Sam Harris' talk at that atheist convention. He made a lot of sense to me then. Of course he always seems to make a lot of sense.

779. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284563 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 12:39 pm

614. Comment #284557 by Dr Doctor

It was probably something ingenious that I said at one point. I do that a lot you see.

780. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284560 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Dianelos-

The claim that atheism means lack of belief in gods is an artificial definition conjured up to shift the burden of proof away.

Quite clearly this is true.

612. Comment #284555 by Steve Zara

It does imply a dichotomy of some sort, but language is a convention between everyone. A concept's absurdity doesn't make it any less recognized or considered by people in the world. It holds the same short-comings you reject "atheism" for, given.

I just think that it is more assertive, and holds more information value.

781. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284553 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 12:26 pm

I always preferred "philosophical skeptic". It has the word "philosophical" in it.

I also like "naturalist". I have to say, the one thing I can't make up my mind about the title "rationalist" is if it is presumptuous or pretentious. A think a little of both.

782. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284468 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 8:51 am

195. Comment #284466 by decius

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQHm7oItkdA

783. Clever Monkeys

Comment #284461 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 8:30 am

I watched this the other day, it was astonishing. I am always quick to say that other animals are underestimated, but I was shocked at much of what I saw in this documentary. I had no idea.

784. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284455 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 8:00 am

186. Comment #284452 by decius

I'll be back in half an hour, the shop is about 300 holy ghosts from here.

I should have saw something like this coming, but it caught me off guard, and cracked me up.

785. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284453 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 7:58 am

Do all theists use the word "mysterious" when they mean unintelligible?

786. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284441 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 7:43 am

174. Comment #284439 by Quetzalcoatl

Nah, he's all about logic, and honesty, Quetz -- I'm sure he's working on that proof right now!

787. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284434 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 7:24 am

164. Comment #284427 by Quetzalcoatl

If you're in a perfect state of existence, why do anything? That's what I want to know. Actions are motivated by necessity, desire, or whimsy. A perfect being lacks the former two, so all you have for motivation is whimsy. Even then, I don't see why a perfect being would do anything ever -- and if it did, you definitely couldn't find a reason for its doing it.

165. Comment #284429 by Steve Zara

Cause wings are pretty, dude.

788. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284423 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 7:10 am

I guess that the super honest, and logical theist is going to ignore the actual application of the argument to give us all a lesson in how straw-men are concocted. Being as how s/he has ignored my and Steve's explanations about this.

789. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284408 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 6:48 am

149. Comment #284406 by paulb

It is a rebuttal to the teleological argument. Do you not understand this? If you agree that god does not necessitate design, then you are agreeing that complexity does not necessitate design, and thus agreeing that the teleological argument is false.

You cannot have both. You cannot argue that complexity necessitates design out of one side of your mouth, and god is not designed out of the other.

790. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284404 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 6:40 am

143. Comment #284399 by paulb

You sure do love mentioning "logic".

791. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284395 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 6:28 am

134. Comment #284387 by paulb

Richard Dawkins explicitly said that he was referring to the Judeo-Christian God. The Judeo-Christian God is uncreated. Therefore, the argument "who designed the designer" is either dishonest (he knew the Judeo-Christian God was uncreated, and he was pretending otherwise) ... or ignorant.

We're discussing something that purportedly actually exists. Not convention. We're not talking about semantics, or what words mean. We're talking about real things. Adding excapisms into your definition is meaningless if you can't demonstrate them, and referring back to you definition to do this is circular.

Like I said, why not just add "existent" into your definition of god so that that can't be questioned either?

In any case, you are missing the point of the argument. RD doesn't really think that there is a god that exists and was created. He uses this to demonstrate the logical flaw in saying that complexity necessitates design. If this is true, then god necessitates design, if god does not, then the argument from design is false. You can't have both.

792. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284376 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 5:47 am

I agree with you Steve (I think clearly by what I've said above). Though -- even though I was going to ignore it -- I never said that all theologians were stupid, so I don't know where that came from, and whether there are interesting intellectual constructs in theology is a matter of opinion, and since they are just brain candy, I don't find them interesting to talk about.

793. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284361 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 4:51 am

114. Comment #284352 by MPhil

I guess it is probably fun brain candy. I've just never had the patience for things I don't think are actually applicable, practical, or useful.

Other than things for purely entertainment purposes. I annoy my brother with where I think art lies on this (he is an artist).

794. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284338 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 4:09 am

106. Comment #284335 by black wolf

There are peer reviewed theology journals?

I find that quite amusing.

795. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284332 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 3:53 am

103. Comment #284328 by Steve Zara

Or -- OR! God is just a HUGE retard!

Also, not to be a dick, but if the perfection you defined requires that he "overcome" the handicaps, then god would need to overcome its nonexistence to meet the perfection you defined. You actually proved god!

796. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284323 by Wosret on November 15, 2008 at 3:34 am

83. Comment #284269 by paulb

Despite everyone else being all over this, I think I'll take a bite as well.

If Richard Dawkins' wishes to debate the existence of God he should at least use the same definition of God that Man has used for the last 2000 years.

Why not just define god as "existent" while you're at it. Making questioning god's existence a straw-man too.

The argument predates two thousand years, and is specifically a refutation of the argument from design. As the argument goes that the complexity, and intricacy of the universe necessitates design. Thus clearly the complexity and intricacy of god must logically necessitate the same thing. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

797. Atheism/Agnosticism Plus Compassion Equals Humanism

Comment #284138 by Wosret on November 14, 2008 at 12:46 pm

The golden rule works as an over-arching principle, but not with specifics. As long as you mean "I don't want to be wronged, so I will attempt to not wrong others" and "I want to be done well, so I will do well to others". That is where is stops though, the specific ways I want to be treated in any given situation could be very different than someone else. Especially from a different culture, or even a different species (for those that don't really care about other animals, imagine a intelligent alien race here). In most cases the good idea is to find out how they would prefer that you behave towards them, and informing them of the same. A lot of times it's fine to just wing it, you don't have time to worry about the little things all the time, but in important situations, I would advice against winging it with the golden rule as your compass.

798. Proposition 8 made me quit the Mormon church

Comment #283955 by Wosret on November 14, 2008 at 3:26 am

20. Comment #283529 by Sarmatae1

Not to purposely be a dick -- I just am by nature, you see; I found that both incredibly corny, and plan inaccurate. The first part is good, and deals with facts that shows their hypocrisy, and inconsistency...but the whole "love" part was eye-rollingly painful to listen to. I'm a fan of romance, and I am not saying that love doesn't exist, or isn't good, but lets be honest. Does a marriage actually increase love? Once you sign those legal documents is your love then amplified by so much of an amount? Can it be said that "love is being denied"? Perhaps love is being ignored, or rejected as legitimate, but not being denied existence.

We're talking about human rights, and equality...I find the last bit to be just silly, and an emotional appeal that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Maybe I'm just a nasty prick...

799. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283940 by Wosret on November 14, 2008 at 3:11 am

584. Comment #283933 by epeeist

You do know about Fibonacci series don't you?

I'm vaguely aware. Though I'm sure that the electrocutions will keep their numbers down -- I'm a terrible person.

I would like to be a procrastinator, but I could never get around to it...

I'm a seventh level grandmaster-procrastinator.

800. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283931 by Wosret on November 14, 2008 at 2:59 am

I don't have a cage...and even if I did, then what would I do with them? I normally just put them outside...but it's the middle of November...

I'll have to do something about it eventually, but for now I'll just ignore them. If it were just an adult mouse I'd put it in the woodshed, but it sounds like a nest of a ton of them. This also is a box beside where my computer is, and the power trouble has been for a few months, yet I just started hearing noises since yesterday. I realized what it must be as I was writing comment 577.

I need to think of a solution where everyone wins. Just abruptly moving them with no idea of what to do next is not such a solution.