Paradox of Nothingness short version

[Dr B]

.....leaps to mind

[ergry]

[...]

Using your logic of us choosing a definition of god which we then try to disprove, I shall define god as a large, pink marshmallow. It used to exist but I ate it, therefore there god does not exist. See how easy it is to prove anything when you make up your own definitions?

.

I still don't see non-emotionalism from my correspondent parties in this thread.

Proof of that is that they bring in concrete emotion-loaded words like pink marshmallow and also graphics which are emotionally loaded.


And that is what I want to bring out, articulate atheists are emotionally motivated, and the proper study for them is to search the emotional ingredients in their actuations.


Okay, suppose we be non-emotional and just ask ourselves here these two questions, and state the why -- and please, no emotionally loaded thoughts and words:

1. Can we humans today prove the existence of God?
2. Can we humans today disprove the existence of God?

If you have to define God, then also avoid using emotionally loaded words like pink marshmallow and certainly no emotionally loaded graphics.


I myself define God as the source of the universe in any way but distincty from the universe.

I believe that is one concept that all peoples who are now into theism or atheism can agree on; but pink marshmallow and anger-loaded graphics, I submit that rationally inspired people would not accept such definitions or definitions thus worded.


When we shall have arrived at a consensus on these two questions without emotionalism, then we can claim to have ascended to a superior level of knowledge on this affair.


Until then we will continue to engage in shouting instead of reasoning.


Yrreg

[Jocky]

Here is a straightforward response, devoid of emotional content. I'm an agnostic, so the label of "emotionally actuated atheism" (whatever that is) does not apply to me.

I myself define God as the source of the universe in any way but distinct from the universe

OK, by your definition:

1. Can we humans today prove the existence of God?

No. By the definition given above, 'God' is not a falsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to gather evidence which could be used to support such a proposition.

2. Can we humans today disprove the existence of God?

We cannot "disprove" either 'God' or anything else. One cannot prove negatives. I think this is the point which Cuddles was making with the marshmallow comment.

It is logically reasonable to assume that a hypothesis is null unless and until there is positive evidence for it. The fact that there is no absolute disproof of something does not represent positive evidence for it, and therefore is irrelevant to establishing the truth if a proposition. This is an extremely important point, which I think lies at the core of this debate.

I anticipate that these answers to your two questions (at least the general thrust, if not the exact wording) may elucidate some degree of consensus from other posters in this thread. Do you think we could now ascend to "a superior level of knowledge on this affair"?

[Cuddles]

Proof of that is that they bring in concrete emotion-loaded words like pink marshmallow and also graphics which are emotionally loaded.

This has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read. Emotionally loaded marshmallows? Seriously, what have you been smoking and where can I get some?

[Mongrel]

I anticipate that these answers to your two questions (at least the general thrust, if not the exact wording) may elucidate some degree of consensus from other posters in this thread. Do you think we could now ascend to "a superior level of knowledge on this affair"?

I believe that I have stated this several times, maybe he'll listen to you though

[Jocky]

I believe that I have stated this several times, maybe he'll listen to you though

Yeah, I know you have.

Thing is, I'm not an emotional atheist like what you are, and thanks to my remorseless agnostic logic (inherited from my Vulcan father, you know ), I can express my thoughts without all that messy fear and anger getting in the way.

[ergry]

Jocky
Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Banbury, Oxfordshire
Posts: 734

Re: Paradox of Nothingness short version

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a straightforward response, devoid of emotional content. I'm an agnostic, so the label of "emotionally actuated atheism" (whatever that is) does not apply to me.

Quote:
I myself define God as the source of the universe in any way but distinct from the universe

OK, by your definition:

Quote:
1. Can we humans today prove the existence of God?

No. By the definition given above, 'God' is not a falsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to gather evidence which could be used to support such a proposition.

Quote:
2. Can we humans today disprove the existence of God?

We cannot "disprove" either 'God' or anything else. One cannot prove negatives. I think this is the point which Cuddles was making with the marshmallow comment.

It is logically reasonable to assume that a hypothesis is null unless and until there is positive evidence for it. The fact that there is no absolute disproof of something does not represent positive evidence for it, and therefore is irrelevant to establishing the truth if a proposition. This is an extremely important point, which I think lies at the core of this debate.

I anticipate that these answers to your two questions (at least the general thrust, if not the exact wording) may elucidate some degree of consensus from other posters in this thread. Do you think we could now ascend to "a superior level of knowledge on this affair"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongrel
I believe that I have stated this several times, maybe he'll listen to you though

Yeah, I know you have.

Thing is, I'm not an emotional atheist like what you are, and thanks to my remorseless agnostic logic (inherited from my Vulcan father, you know ), I can express my thoughts without all that messy fear and anger getting in the way.

Thanks, Jocky, for your non-emotional reactions to my questions.


I understand that we both, you and I, agree that God as I define it and you accept it, namely, the source in any way of the universe and distinct from it, cannot be proved or disproved as regards His existence.

You are now asking me what superior level of knowledge I am referring to when we have now arrived at the consensus.

First, I like to invite you to consider that all our knowledge and attempts at knowledge are from the standpoint of man and by man's resources and labor, that is, us, you and me, and also every human, in particular persons who can and will consider an issue non-emotionally, like laboratory workers examining a substance like protein or a substance like a cancerous tissue.

The superior knowledge that I like to invite you and me to go into is to find out why or on what motivations people who call themselves or identify themselves as theists or atheists, why they are emotional about their convictions -- when if they would be unemotional they would accept like you and me that God's existence is not at present susceptible to proofs by man and to man.

What I mean is that all attempts at proving or disproving the existence of God having been shown to be for man at present impossible, then we must, persons like you and me, transit to another domain or ascend if I may use the term to a higher level of discourse or examination, namely:

Why or what are the motivations on which theists and atheists are moved by to be attached to their respective mentality of theism and atheism.

I think you say it very clearly, anger and fear, are the emotions involved, and we want to search for other emotions as well, then determine what objects are sought by persons who are moved by anger and fear and other emotions, for which they are attached to their theism and atheism.

-----------------

At no time in the history of human learning have we possessed so much knowledge of human actuations as today in the philosophy and science of psychology.

I submit that psychology, the philosophy and science of human actuations, is the most propitious instrument for the study of theism and atheism.


ergry

[Allo Allo]

I’m emotional! I enjoy being emotional. I feel ALIVE when something makes me het up – or delighted. I do it to myself on purpose! It’s my way of keeping fit so I don’t get to eighty and discover I’ve already been dead for twenty years…..

Are you talking about aggressiveness rather?

I made a nice emotional point a while back that whatever way anyone defines/proves/not proves God – it will not change the way fundamentalist religions define God – so what’s the point of atheists “ascending to a higher way of thinking”?

In my life I have been hassled – even persecuted by religious fundamentalists, but never by atheists. So I don’t have a problem with atheists – only with “religion”. Do you have a problem with something too? I wish you were more succinct in your posts.

What would be the point of “we want to search for other emotions as well, then determine what objects are sought by persons who are moved by anger and fear and other emotions, for which they are attached to their theism and atheism.” To do what?



M

[Jocky]

we both ... agree that God as I define it and you accept it, namely, the source in any way of the universe and distinct from it ...

Your definition of 'God' is not exactly the same as the one I would have given, but I am willing to accept your definition for the purposes of this discussion.

That's how it goes with the G word, there are as many definitions as there are people ...

... cannot be proved or disproved as regards His existence

I agree with that as far as it goes, but do not omit the important corollary I stated above:

It is logically reasonable to assume that a hypothesis is null unless and until there is positive evidence for it

In other words, it is possible to hold an atheistic position on logical grounds. It is therefore not a necessary prerequisite of atheism to have an emotional response to the concept of God.

I would not deny that there are atheists who exhibit a degree of emotional attachment to their position, but that is just human nature in action. Examples of such behaviour can be found in proponents of any view.

I think you say it very clearly, anger and fear, are the emotions involved

I stress I do not consider that Mongrel personally was exhibiting these emotions. Far be it from me to delve into the emotions of others, but I'd guess that his reaction would better be characterised as exasperation.

we want to ... determine what objects are sought by persons who are moved by anger and fear and other emotions, for which they are attached to their theism and atheism

I think I now see the central topic which you wish to discuss. Am I right in thinking that we are talking around the following question:

"What motivates the emotions which lead people strongly to believe or disbelieve in God?"

[Here I repeat my important caveat once more: it is possible to hold an atheistic position on logical grounds, and therefore atheism is not necessarily emotionally actuated - although it could be in some cases.]

OK, let's begin the discussion here.

I would judge that Fear could actuate theism. For instance, Fear is an important motivation underlying Pascal's Wager - fear of the consequences of not believing in a God who later turns out to exist after all, and then proceeds to flambe you for all eternity in a fit of pique.

[Jocky]

What would be the point of “we want to search for other emotions as well, then determine what objects are sought by persons who are moved by anger and fear and other emotions, for which they are attached to their theism and atheism.”

To do what?

Good question! Personally I'm sad enough to talk about such things just for fun, but I'd be interested in hearing ergry's answer to Allo's point.

[ergry]

Quote:
Originally Posted by allo allo
What would be the point of “we want to search for other emotions as well, then determine what objects are sought by persons who are moved by anger and fear and other emotions, for which they are attached to their theism and atheism.”

To do what?

Good question! Personally I'm sad enough to talk about such things just for fun, but I'd be interested in hearing ergry's answer to Allo's point.

What I am trying to do is to search for the facts.

If it is said and accepted that ars gratia artis, then we can also postulate and I for one subscribe to the proposition, that scientia gratia scientiae.

What is the practical value of such an inquiry?

I personally also find a lot of things I do everyday asking me back the question, what is the point of it all?

Well, there is life in me and I do want to stay alive and keep busy and live long and enjoyably, until I die.

So also I do have an intelligence which in the present context is moved to search for the facts in the emotions that are responsible for theism and atheism in man or among men.

When we have the facts, then statesmen who are in the business or avocation of governing men might have some good use for the facts, all for the better guidance of men, i.e., so that everyone lives peaceably with everyone else whatever theism and atheism.

That is all I have about what is the point in searching for the emotions involved in theism as in atheism.

My keen interest has always been in the psychology of man, because I see man first as quintessentially a psychological life form than a logical one.


If I may, I am trying my utmost best to be academic in this thread, namely, to adopt a neutral emotional stance, or impartial attitude except for curiosity, but I notice that some posters here are always into an antagonistic posture and similarly instead of being rational, taking up almost always a posture of ridiculing the topic.

That is also most conspicuously an example of emotionalism, which is perfectly understandable because as I say, man is a psychological life form and very rarely if at all possible, a logical life form.


But we would want to be purely oriented toward the facts instead of venting out feelings, positive or negative toward each other.


ergry

[Jocky]

I for one subscribe to the proposition, that scientia gratia scientiae

This discussion isn't really scientific, I'd say it lies somewhere between psychology and philosophy. That's not to say it isn't worth talking about of course, but it's important not to claim scientific veracity and rigour where it is not warranted.

When we have the facts, then statesmen who are in the business or avocation of governing men might have some good use for the facts, all for the better guidance of men, i.e., so that everyone lives peaceably with everyone else whatever theism and atheism

Very laudable. I am in favour of people living to gether peacably and respecting each others' rights to freedom of speech. Who isn't?

I notice that some posters here are always into an antagonistic posture

In the spirit of rational enquiry, let's move on past that, shall we? It's all getting a bit ad hominem.

I posted above an example of an emotional response which I contend may actuate religious belief.

I would judge that Fear could actuate theism. For instance, Fear is an important motivation underlying Pascal's Wager - fear of the consequences of not believing in a God who later turns out to exist after all, and then proceeds to flambe you for all eternity in a fit of pique

Ergry, would you care to advance the discussion by addressing this post, or by proposing another example?

[Cuddles]

But we would want to be purely oriented toward the facts instead of venting out feelings, positive or negative toward each other.

You don't seem to understand any of our points. It is not emotional to point out your logical fallacies. Asking for a definition of "god" is not emotional, it is absolutely fundamental to the discussion. Unfortunately, this is where your biggest problem comes from. You ask if god can be proved or disproved. Fair enough, but you have to define which god and, more importantly, you have to realise that anything proved or disproved about that definition of god has no relevance to any other definition.

The definition you have chosen is a disinterested creator who has no influence on the running of the world. This is all well and good, and you are correct that this cannot be proven or disproven in any way. However, it is not the god that the vast majority of the world believe in. Anything you conclude about this god does not mean anything to those who don't believe in it. You have specifically mentioned Christians, Muslims and Jews, but the god you are choosing to actually discuss has nothing to do with them. If you want to debate the existence of the Christian god, you must use the Christian definition.

You seem to think that if we force a certain definition of god onto everyone then we will all agree and all be happy. What you seem to fail to realise is that pretty much the biggest cause of conflict throughout human history has been people trying to force their view of god onto everyone else. The only way to actually have peace (between religions at least) is to accept other people's beliefs, not to try and change them.

[ergry]

Quote:
I for one subscribe to the proposition, that scientia gratia scientiae

This discussion isn't really scientific, I'd say it lies somewhere between psychology and philosophy. That's not to say it isn't worth talking about of course, but it's important not to claim scientific veracity and rigour where it is not warranted.

.

By scientia gratia scientiae I mean by the Latin word scientia knowledge; so the phrase means knowledge for the sake of knowledge; and in the context I want to situate ourselves in, it means knowledge of facts for the sake of the knowledge of facts.

Originally Posted by Jocky
I would judge that Fear could actuate theism. For instance, Fear is an important motivation underlying Pascal's Wager - fear of the consequences of not believing in a God who later turns out to exist after all, and then proceeds to flambe you for all eternity in a fit of pique

Ergry, would you care to advance the discussion by addressing this post, or by proposing another example?

.

Fear is an emotion that is responsible for man's historical suspicion of God's existence; that is a fact.

Aside from fear there are other emotions responsible for man's historical suspicion of God's existence, for example, hope; that is also a fact.

...fear of the consequences of not believing in a God who later turns out to exist after all, and then proceeds to flambe you for all eternity in a fit of pique

The sentence above is emotional. Would you be willing to put it's essential import in an unemotional manner, by doing without the emotionally loaded words, like the following rewriting as an example from my part:

Fear of making either one of two choices to believe in, namely: God exists or God does not exist, which choice could turn out to be contrary to the fact, motivates man to make what he thinks is a more advantageous choice, namely, to believe that God exists, than to believe that God does not exist; because if it should turn out that God does not exist, then he does not have to relate to God, while if it should turn out that God does exist, then he has to relate to God.

We can say that such a way of proceeding in the choice of either one of two options, to believe or to not believe, is man's way of being practical.

Does man have to be practical? Of course man has to be practical, that is man's I submit natural way of dealing with fear and hope when fear and hope have given rise to the suspicion that God exists.

This means that a practical rule of choice is to take the positive option in either one of two opposite alternatives, when taking the positive choice is not to man's estimation an overly deterring inconvenience if at all.

Should man not overcome his fear and hope? He could and I for one is of the opinion that he should; that would take care of the practical need to choose to believe in God's existence than to not believe.

That means every man should exert efforts to grow out of the historical man, which again poses either of two choices for man or everyman who is concerned about God or no God: to grow out of historical man or to not grow out of historical man; and as usual everyman will choose the practical option as he sees practical.

Which alternative option will be chosen by more or most men? For the answer, I submit we have to consult if I am not mistaken, the social psychologists and anthropologists and students of the history of man's practical choices.


ergry

[ergry]

[...]

You seem to think that if we force a certain definition of god onto everyone then we will all agree and all be happy. What you seem to fail to realise is that pretty much the biggest cause of conflict throughout human history has been people trying to force their view of god onto everyone else. The only way to actually have peace (between religions at least) is to accept other people's beliefs, not to try and change them.

.

My definition of God is the following as I have stated already:

The source of the universe in any way, and distinct from the universe.

I submit that is one definition that can serve for the discussion among theists and atheists on what I like to concentrate on, namely, the emotionalism of theism and atheism.

Anyone can accept that kind of a definition whether he be theist or atheist or any kinds of theists or atheists.

What they do with that definition is up to each person, as long as he does not do away with it in the process of adding to the definition.

You seem to think that if we force a certain definition of god onto everyone then we will all agree and all be happy.

As a matter of fact, and correct me if I am mistaken, that is at present what civilization, society, and law, and government, and statesmen, and world organizations like the United Nations and other worldwide humanistic entities are doing, not exactly forcing, but trying with the utmost of efforts to convince people to at least tolerate a common concept of God for everyone whether theists or atheists and whatever kinds of the one group as the other -- by education.

And also by education and by legal control to dissuade and deter all men from the perpetration of violence on each other in the name of their own respective additions to a commonly accepted concept of God.

Modern democratic government precisely seeks to on the one hand allow the belief in God or disbelief in God, but on the other hand to ultimately put away from society those who would perpetrate violence on others in the name of their kind of elaborated belief or disbelief in God.


That is what I am after with my examination on the emotionalism in theism and in atheism.


ergry