No such thing as God.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by nameless

All perspectives are correct in themselves. All perspectives are incomplete/limited to one extent or another.
One can but accept your statement as your perspective. In and as such, you are correct; at least in the moment that it was conceived. Perhaps your perspective will be different another moment. Perhaps you might then state, "There is a God!" That would also be 'correct', also 'incomplete.
Think of the blind men surrounding the elephant. One feels the tail and declares the elephant snake-like, with hair. Correct, but limited.
Another feels the leg and declares the elephant to be like a great tree... Correct, again, but...
We have learned to follow the urgings of the ego and to 'identify' with our concepts, and thus to argue who is 'right', leaving everyone else 'wrong'. Perhaps a more pragmatic and mutually beneficial approach would be for all to consider as many perspectives (all 'correct' to one extent or another) as possible in order to gain a 'better' understanding of elephant?
Peace

Nameless,

That is a wonderful story or analogy but, to bad we do not have a physical reality to try to interpret as in the case of the elephant, in this case it is the short comings of the blind which frustrates defination, in the case the concept of god, it is the short comings of the concept of god which defies all reason, thus defination. Edit: Sorry Iconoclast, yours is stated the better.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

for reality to have definite characterisitics, everything that exists must be consistent with everything else that exists. If God exists - by definitiion a supernatural entity, then reality does not.

Look, I'm an atheist, but I don't buy this argument. Because we do not and cannot know all characteristics of reality, so therefore we cannot exclude the possibility that God is consistent with the characteristics of reality.

Extinction – does it matter?

You ask this open ended question as if it cannot be qualified further. Does it matter to what or to whom?

[iconoclast]

Aedes, How are things with you? 10/10 on the fingers and toes thing i hope! Not getting as much sleep as you are used to i imagine - because you entirely miss the point. It follows from cause and effect that everything that exists is consistent with everything else that exists, and thus it's not necessary to know all the characteristics of reality. We have solidly valid knowledge of the main physical, chemical and biological characteristics of reality - and everything that exists must be consistent with these. Were it otherwise, as i've said, we could not have evolved or have valid knowledge.

On the second point, i'm not entering into an argument about the argument but would like you to address the question. i'd be interested to know what someone intelligent enough to be capable of such rhetorical skill actually thought, here or PM!

Boagie, thanks, but you're right about nameless's argument for absolute skeptical secularism. The analogy is flawed.

nameless, are all analogies equally flawed!?!

[boagie]

Iconoclast,

The interesting thing to me is, that there is, has to be, an inverse measure between the quality of the environment and that of the quality of one's consciousness. What indeed is our identity but the content or our consciousness, and that content, is of our knowledge of the physcial world. Organization, industry, technologies and society itself as a whole, can be nothing but our biology as extension. The earth you might say is our mother goddess, certainly earth at least constitutes a rational god, controlling the rhythms and pattens of all life, it is deserving of respect and perhaps worship. What a concept, to worship something real!!!



"nameless, are all analogies equally flawed!?!" quote

Excellent, I never thought to question that, but, analogy must by its nature be flawed, as it is not the thing itself.

[de Silentio]

iconoclast - We have solidly valid knowledge of the main physical, chemical and biological characteristics of reality

I bet the same statement was made 100 years ago, and 200 years ago, and probably 300 hundred years ago.

But when we look back we realize how little they actually knew little about reality in regards to the areas of that you mention.

Excellent, I never thought to question that, but, analogy must by its nature be flawed, as it is not the thing itself.

Even though analogies inherently fall short of describing the real 'thing', the point of the analogy is not to stand on its own, but to aid in understanding the original idea at hand.

[boagie]

de Silento,

"Even though analogies inherently fall short of describing the real 'thing', the point of the analogy is not to stand on its own, but to aid in understanding the original idea at hand."Quote

Your point is well taken de Silento. Analogy by definition is not a precise a relation.

[Didymos Thomas]

We have solidly valid knowledge of the main physical, chemical and biological characteristics of reality - and everything that exists must be consistent with these. Were it otherwise, as i've said, we could not have evolved or have valid knowledge.

Until every conception of God is inconsistent with what science has to say about reality, the point is moot.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Aedes, How are things with you? 10/10 on the fingers and toes thing i hope!

The baby is doing great, thanks for asking!

Not getting as much sleep as you are used to i imagine - because you entirely miss the point.

Hehe, nice.

It follows from cause and effect that everything that exists is consistent with everything else that exists, and thus it's not necessary to know all the characteristics of reality. We have solidly valid knowledge of the main physical, chemical and biological characteristics of reality

And yet if the possibility exists that we are wrong about one fundamental thing, then anything else in this chain of cause and effect can fall apart. Turns out we're wrong about many things, and we are constantly revising our understanding. One cliche in science is that we're right about 50% of what we know and wrong about 50% -- but we don't know which 50% is which.

...and everything that exists must be consistent with these

...and therefore a God as described in the Biblical tradition is inconsistent with everything we understand about the physical and chemical nature of the universe. That said, this comparison between a tradition and a scientific understanding cannot logically lead to an assertion of God's nonexistence.

On the second point, i'm not entering into an argument about the argument but would like you to address the question. (Extinction -- does it matter?)

Ok, but if you know me you'll know that I like to be nuanced about complex topics rather than picking a camp to join. And also I am somewhat of a relativist in the sense that what matters depends on point of view and not some absolute judgement.

So in the grand scheme of the universe, or in the context that the world will some day disappear in a ball of fire from the exploding sun, the lives of every organism on earth are negligible and extinction doesn't matter.

But with a closer point of view extinction certainly matters to all the other organisms and ecosystems that interact with (or even depend upon) the species going extinct. And to the extent that we humans enjoy the world we're in and think of ourselves somewhat as stewards, it matters to our experience and self image.

So this leads to my question -- do ultimate truths really matter for anything at all? Sure, life may be meaningless in the huge ultimate scheme -- but who really cares about the huge ultimate scheme? Meaningless or not, we're in this life and we do care, and we're in this together and we know we're in it together. And if there were some way to know that God didn't exist or better yet God did exist but disdained / hated / disowned us, we'd still find a way to make life matter.

Why?

Because our lives are still ours regardless of any ultimate truth.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

nameless, Couldn't disagree more. I'm not a blind man sexually assaulting an elephant and pretending it's a coconut palm. There's an actual reality we are able to have valid knowledge of, and apply that knowledge to create technologies that function. Were reality somehow otherwise, life could not have evolved because evolution could not have chanced upon a consistent chain of best answers to the questions posed by the environment. We could not apply scientific principles to make technology for there would be no such principles.
I'm not trained in formal logic either - but, for reality to have definite characterisitics, everything that exists must be consistent with everything else that exists. If God exists - by definitiion a supernatural entity, then reality does not. Because reality exists - ergo, God does not.

I agree that actual reality does exist based on our ability to test our empirical environment for axioms that continue to be unequivocally consistent, but this does not define God (or something greater then ourselves) as nonexistent, on the contrary, the provable axioms that hold court over our Natural World seem to offer the reinforcement of our ability to prove our self-awareness, or reconfirm our very existence. Are ability to understand and test our Natural World is only possible through the process of consideration, and the components of information that allow this process to occur can only come from our empirical environment. The consideration process is completely influenced or biased by the constraints of these Reality-based components of information. Base on this line of thinking, is not the consideration process of God (or something greater then ourselves) completely biased, and consequently invalid, because of the available components of empirical information are completely ill-suited for this "type" of consideration. My only response to this defined constraint, is that God can not be considered with the tools of inherent disqualifications, but can only seldom be revealed (but not pondered) at those few moments in life when there is a critical-mass event that you intuitively understand as something potentially greater then what our current Reality has revealed.

** Please remember to close quotes!

[Didymos Thomas]

...and therefore a God as described in the Biblical tradition is inconsistent with everything we understand about the physical and chemical nature of the universe.

Not necessarily - Depends on who is reading the Bible. I know I'm even further out there, accepting some apocryphal material, being skeptical of some canonical material, but even Christians who stick to traditional texts have a wide variety of views about God.
Especially to go so far as to say inconsistent with everything.