Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Define God

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Abdou16Alger View Post
    who lose proofs start to be comic ...
    What about those who's never had proofs (you)?
    Originally posted by Abdou16Alger View Post
    i think this place is to debate with ideas and who start the thread didn t start it to make fun , if he wanted something like this he would read something funny , otherwise it s ridiculous
    you made this thread fun with your funny silly posts So, don't blame me for that

    Comment


    • #62
      Suppose you are building a machine. Perhaps it's a very sophisticated machine that runs on complicated code. As you build your machine, you might even give it different ways to interact with the world around it: gather data, process data, interpret outputs, act according to certain rules on those interpretations. You might even give it ways to recognise you, as its creator.

      But can it ever truly understand you? Isn't it just following the rules that you've provided?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
        Suppose you are building a machine. Perhaps it's a very sophisticated machine that runs on complicated code. As you build your machine, you might even give it different ways to interact with the world around it: gather data, process data, interpret outputs, act according to certain rules on those interpretations. You might even give it ways to recognise you, as its creator.

        But can it ever truly understand you? Isn't it just following the rules that you've provided?
        another metaphysics rant... *yawn*

        Comment


        • #64
          Not sure what else you were expecting in a topic with this title.

          Comment


          • #65
            that god is imaginay junk, etc, for example...

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
              that god is imaginay junk, etc, for example...
              Imaginary junk is god.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                that god is imaginay junk, etc, for example...
                I wonder if a man-made machine could ever say the same thing about its creator.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                  I wonder if a man-made machine could ever say the same thing about its creator.
                  Even if we make such a machine it will be still able to see us, etc.

                  And this is just humans who want to become like that "god" they invented and want to create life, worlds like they used to imagine the god did. But in objective reality there was no any "intelligent design", obviously.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                    Even if we make such a machine it will be still able to see us, etc.
                    Do you understand, or can you define, everything you detect with your senses?

                    Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                    And this is just humans who want to become like that "god" they invented and want to create life, worlds like they used to imagine the god did.
                    What is the relevance?

                    Here is my point (set out plainly, since you appear to want to ignore it and grumble about other things, and take the use of more interesting language as an excuse to do just that):

                    Assuming God is real:
                    If we do not think that a man-made machine can ever really "understand" man,
                    then, we should also think that a God-made man can never really "understand" God.

                    Assuming God is not real:
                    There is nothing to understand.

                    Thus whether or not God is real, if a creation cannot understand its creator, then we cannot understand God.
                    And of course, we cannot define something if we do not understand it.

                    Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                    But in objective reality there was no any "intelligent design", obviously.
                    If you think that man can design things intelligently, then I think you necessarily believe that intelligent design is a real thing.
                    I'm not sure what the phrase means, actually, but you've used it.
                    Last edited by bsgsbkht; 05-21-2017, 07:50 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                      Do you understand, or can you define, everything you detect with your senses?
                      Yes. Now people can understand and define even things beyond their senses.

                      Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                      What is the relevance?

                      Here is my point (set out plainly, since you appear to want to ignore it and grumble about other things, and take the use of more interesting language as an excuse to do just that):

                      Assuming God is real:
                      If we do not think that a man-made machine can ever really "understand" man,
                      then, we should also think that a God-made man can never really "understand" God.

                      Assuming God is not real:
                      There is nothing to understand.
                      The relevance was that the idea of a man-made machine comes from human mind. It's like "if we can make a conscious machine one day so we could be created with the same way". But why do you think something like that supposed to exist in nature? Well, even if we accept the idea of the "creator" we can go further and think about who created the creator, and so on and so on. It's way more rational to just use Occam's razor without excessive bullshitting and schizoid-like assumptions.

                      Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                      Thus whether or not God is real, if a creation cannot understand its creator, then we cannot understand God.
                      And of course, we cannot define something if we do not understand it.
                      That's just metaphysics and usual apeals to "our limited perception" and "incognizable world"...useless junk... one can say we live in matrix or we are just a dream of god Shiva (or whatever whom) etc. but all that is just bullshitting and making things out of nowhere (just of human imagination).

                      Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                      If you think that man can design things intelligently, then I think you necessarily believe that intelligent design is a real thing.
                      If man can it that doesn't mean mankind was created by some consciousness. That's just intuitive shallow judgement of some people.
                      Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                      I'm not sure what the phrase means, actually, but you've used it.
                      This is common creationist term...
                      Last edited by Phdintho1; 05-21-2017, 09:53 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                        Yes. Now people can understand and define even things beyond their senses.
                        It does not necessarily follow from the fact that we can understand and define things we cannot sense, that we can understand or define everything we can sense.

                        Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                        The relevance was that the idea of a man-made machine comes from human mind.
                        Well, does it, actually? Is an idea purely invented, or are thoughts reflexions of things that exist outside the mind?

                        Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                        It's like "if we can make a conscious machine one day so we could be created with the same way". But why do you think something like that supposed to exist in nature? Well, even if we accept the idea of the "creator" we can go further and think about who created the creator, and so on and so on. It's way more rational to just use Occam's razor without excessive bullshitting and schizoid-like assumptions.
                        I'm not attempting to make such an argument, so criticisms of it are irrelevant. Really the existence of God is an entirely separate issue to the definition of God (unless he is defined to exist, I suppose - this one has been tried). We can define even things that don't exist, can't we?

                        Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                        That's just metaphysics
                        What do you have against metaphysics? You're engaging in a metaphysical discussion.

                        Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                        and usual apeals to "our limited perception" and "incognizable world"...useless junk... one can say we live in matrix or we are just a dream of god Shiva (or whatever whom) etc. but all that is just bullshitting and making things out of nowhere (just of human imagination).
                        I contest that it isn't "useless junk" at all if it helps us to think about things in different ways.

                        Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                        If man can it that doesn't mean mankind was created by some consciousness. That's just intuitive shallow judgement of some people.
                        Again you're attempting to counter arguments I don't pretend to make.

                        Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                        This is common creationist term...
                        I'm well aware of that. I'm still not sure what it means, though.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                          It does not necessarily follow from the fact that we can understand and define things we cannot sense, that we can understand or define everything we can sense.
                          We can also make up things that doesn't exist at all. And given that all this god fiction comes from the times when people knew just a little about the world... that's silly to stick to this sort of ideas. It's easiest approach - just to shift all issues to an omnipotent creator and to say we can't understand everything.

                          Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                          Well, does it, actually? Is an idea purely invented, or are thoughts reflexions of things that exist outside the mind?
                          Not really. We can imagine things that don't exist outside the mind as well.

                          Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                          I'm not attempting to make such an argument, so criticisms of it are irrelevant. Really the existence of God is an entirely separate issue to the definition of God (unless he is defined to exist, I suppose - this one has been tried). We can define even things that don't exist, can't we?
                          But this is next that we're supposed to think of if we accept/imagine existence of god. What do you mean by god, after all? The most common sense people put in this word is "omnipotent supreme conscious creature".

                          Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                          What do you have against metaphysics? You're engaging in a metaphysical discussion.
                          It is a defeatist philosophy and makes no sense with philosophy being meant to be about cognition but metaphysics says we can never understand everything and our perception is limited.

                          Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                          I contest that it isn't "useless junk" at all if it helps us to think about things in different ways.
                          It is a flawed thinking. Various conspiracy, paranoia, etc. aslo come from this sort of thinking. That's something like type 2 errors in statistical hypothesis testing.

                          Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                          Again you're attempting to counter arguments I don't pretend to make.
                          What was the argument about, then, if it wasn't meant to be an argument to support the idea of intelligent design?

                          Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                          I'm well aware of that. I'm still not sure what it means, though.
                          As far as I know it means the idea of the world being created by a conscious/intelligent powerful creature.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                            We can also make up things that doesn't exist at all. And given that all this god fiction comes from the times when people knew just a little about the world... that's silly to stick to this sort of ideas. It's easiest approach - just to shift all issues to an omnipotent creator and to say we can't understand everything.
                            You're making all sorts of assertions and prescriptions, but none of them actually relates to the cause-and-effect issue I was talking about. You gave a non-answer to my earlier question and I wanted to explain, logically, why it was a non-answer.

                            As for making things up: what does it mean for it to "not exist at all"? Surely if we've made a thing up, it exists at least in some sense, as an idea.

                            Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                            Not really. We can imagine things that don't exist outside the mind as well.
                            Can we? I don't think you can disprove platonism (but you are, of course, familiar with Occam's Razor).

                            I suppose the question to ask is: Can we not see, or smell, or hear things that exist only in the mind, also? How are we to know that anything exists outside the mind at all? Are you a solipsist?

                            Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                            But this is next that we're supposed to think of if we accept/imagine existence of god.
                            On what basis do you impute such a motive?

                            Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                            What do you mean by god, after all?
                            That's what the thread is about.

                            Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                            Whe most common sense people put in this word is "omnipotent supreme conscious creature".
                            There you go: that's your attempt at defining God. I suppose you have to clarify the meanings of those elements, though. For example, does "creature" not implying that a thing was "created"?

                            Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                            It is a defeatist philosophy and makes no sense with philosophy being meant to be about cognition but metaphysics says we can never understand everything and our perception is limited.
                            Metaphysics is a field, not a doctrine. You're getting off track, talking about very specific theories of epistemology that haven't really got much to do with the questions I was asking.

                            Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                            It is a flawed thinking. Various conspiracy, paranoia, etc. aslo come from this sort of thinking. That's something like type 2 errors in statistical hypothesis testing.
                            How is recognising the utility of abstract thought and analogy anything like a false negative?

                            Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                            What was the argument about, then, if it wasn't meant to be an argument to support the idea of intelligent design?
                            I already set it out (I thought, pretty clearly) above, where I said, "Here is my point".

                            Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                            As far as I know it means the idea of the world being created by a conscious/intelligent powerful creature.
                            I have only seen it used specifically in the context of evolution. I don't think it's a well-formed idea (probably, this is a design feature). For that reason I say that I don't really know what it means.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                              You're making all sorts of assertions and prescriptions, but none of them actually relates to the cause-and-effect issue I was talking about. You gave a non-answer to my earlier question and I wanted to explain, logically, why it was a non-answer.
                              Which one? I answered about man-made machine and that there are no reliable reasons to think humans are "god-made machines".
                              Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                              As for making things up: what does it mean for it to "not exist at all"? Surely if we've made a thing up, it exists at least in some sense, as an idea.
                              it means "it doesn't exists in real world".

                              Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                              Can we? I don't think you can disprove platonism (but you are, of course, familiar with Occam's Razor).

                              I suppose the question to ask is: Can we not see, or smell, or hear things that exist only in the mind, also? How are we to know that anything exists outside the mind at all? Are you a solipsist?
                              There is no way to disprove fiction. That's why Occam's razor is good for such a junk.
                              As for the question, well, we can (if you mean our mind can create senses) but we should filter it out in order to just reliable stuff left.
                              How? There are different people that can confirm the same reality or particular thing to exist. And other ways... like someone said in other thread "jump off the building if you think world isn't real" etc. I'm a materialist.

                              Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                              On what basis do you impute such a motive?
                              On the same basis you impute god and man-made machine argument.

                              Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                              That's what the thread is about.
                              Ok, god is powerful conscious creature from humans fiction stories whose exact abilities and nature can vary regarding to person's imagination. That's it. The question is solved.

                              Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                              There you go: that's your attempt at defining God. I suppose you have to clarify the meanings of those elements, though. For example, does "creature" not implying that a thing was "created"?
                              Yes, it does. This is what I was talking about earlier. So, the question is if things are always supposed to be created who did create the creator? and if things can appear without being created why the hell do we come up with god/creator idea?

                              Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                              Metaphysics is a field, not a doctrine. You're getting off track, talking about very specific theories of epistemology that haven't really got much to do with the questions I was asking.
                              Even if so it doesn't change anything. There's just material world. I don't think I really got off track with god being stuff that's "beyond the world".

                              Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                              How is recognising the utility of abstract thought and analogy anything like a false negative?
                              Utility? It's rather about objective reality. "god hypothesis" is exactly a false hypothesis.

                              Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                              I already set it out (I thought, pretty clearly) above, where I said, "Here is my point".
                              But I do stick to this subject concerning man-made machine argument.

                              Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                              I have only seen it used specifically in the context of evolution. I don't think it's a well-formed idea (probably, this is a design feature). For that reason I say that I don't really know what it means.
                              well, anyways it always includes some sort of creator.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                Which one? I answered about man-made machine and that there are no reliable reasons to think humans are "god-made machines".
                                The relations in propositional logic hold whether or not the premise is actually true in reality. What I have tried to do is show that (A -> B) AND (A' -> B). You're saying "A isn't true", but this doesn't tell us anything about B.

                                The question, by the way, was:
                                "Do you understand, or can you define, everything you detect with your senses?"

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                it means "it doesn't exists in real world".
                                Do ideas not exist in the real world? Where do they exist, then? How could you conceive them if they didn't exist in the real world? Where do you exist? Where does your mind exist?

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                There is no way to disprove fiction.
                                There are, of course, ways to disprove specific claims of fact. But it's beside the point.

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                That's why Occam's razor is good for such a junk.
                                Occam's Razor is a useful practical tool but doesn't necessarily show us the truth of anything. You might, by the way, do well to read about its eponym's views on God.

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                As for the question, well, we can (if you mean our mind can create senses) but we should filter it out in order to just reliable stuff left.
                                How? There are different people that can confirm the same reality or particular thing to exist.
                                How do you know different people exist outside your mind?

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                And other ways... like someone said in other thread "jump off the building if you think world isn't real" etc.
                                Not really persuasive. If I jump off a building "in my head", it's going to hurt 'in my head", and I might even die "in my head". And if the world "in my head" is the only world I know, that's clearly something to be avoided.

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                I'm a materialist.
                                Okay, but I still expect you to answer the questions I've asked.

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                On the same basis you impute god and man-made machine argument.
                                This doesn't make sense as a response. I'm asking you where you get the idea that I'm trying to make such an argument - I haven't made it or claimed to be making it, and on the contrary I've denied trying to make it. I'm not "imputing" (but double-check the meaning of this word) that argument.

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                Ok, god is powerful conscious creature from humans fiction stories whose exact abilities and nature can vary regarding to person's imagination. That's it. The question is solved.
                                How come some traits are set and others aren't? Did you have a good reason for deciding which would be allowed to vary? You still haven't clarified the meanings of the terms you used to describe God.

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                Yes, it does. This is what I was talking about earlier. So, the question is if things are always supposed to be created who did create the creator? and if things can appear without being created why the hell do we come up with god/creator idea?
                                Well, it's not what I was talking about. Where did I say that everything must have been created? I suspect that you're preoccupied with this for your own reasons and are dragging it in to a conversation where it really doesn't belong.

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                Even if so it doesn't change anything. There's just material world. I don't think I really got off track with god being stuff that's "beyond the world".
                                You said:
                                "metaphysics says we can never understand everything and our perception is limited."
                                Some metaphysical theories say things like this, but there are all manner of metaphysical theories. Your pet theory of "materialism" is a metaphysical theory.

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                Utility?
                                Yes, utility. It's useful for concrete, practical applications to understand things in theory and in abstract.

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                It's rather about objective reality.
                                How is this contrary to utility?

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                "god hypothesis" is exactly a false hypothesis.
                                Relevance?

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                But I do stick to this subject concerning man-made machine argument.
                                On the contrary, you've been running off on all sorts of wild tangents (some of which are interesting, granted), but most certainly not dealing with the issue, to the point that I wonder if you're not deliberately avoiding the question.

                                Originally posted by Phdintho1 View Post
                                well, anyways it always includes some sort of creator.
                                So does dot-painting. Are you going to talk about dot-painting next?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X