Another Argument Against God

Actual subject matter deleted - it is not content. However, I judge that much of the discussion of the nature of the arguments, and why they are not content, has potential value. Thus, I've retained that while eliminating references to the issue itself. This is the most heavy-handed edit of Wiki I've ever done... but I stand by it, and am ready for flak. -- DanielKnapp

Oh, really? Is that why you haven't signed your UserName, or even registered a UserName? Coward. -- MikeSmith Was waiting for someone to ask.

This kind of discussion should probably be on the WhyClublet. This Wiki is mostly about software, and discussions otherwise seem to distract from this main intent. Would the original author consider deleting this page and move it to Why? Thanks!

Only if clublet allows anonymous discussion, which it doesn't seem to.

What does anonymity have to do with it? Ward asked us a long time ago to keep religious content over on WhyClublet, so let's do that.

I doubt that what you quote is meant to be taken that way.

Then what does it mean? Clearly this argument is easy to argue against in the way you just did, but I think the response ignores the simplicity and power of the message for something more mystical, without a reason. The simplest possible interpretation that could possibly work is a fairly literal interpretation. There would have to be a good reason not to use this interpretation. Why couldn't it be literally true?

At this point, the old version of this page had much discussion of organic chemistry. Yes, organic chemistry. Yes.

I took the initial paragraphs of this page to be a joke. Surely no-one thinks this is worth serious debate (since the first sentence could simply be incorrect).

No, I'm serious. Why is it a joke to you? Because (a) the page was not spawned by previous discussion, and (b) it's obvious that numerous well-intended interpretations are possible, with no way of ordering them by merit. Thus serious discussion is pointless.

Then I guess no new discussions can ever be started if they weren't spawned from the line of the very first. A shame really. It's obvious that the most obvious interpretation leads to an interesting conclusion, one which is obviously not appreciated by many, but it is still interesting.

On the contrary. Put forward something new that is amenable to debate, and it could make sense to debate it. Taking an arbitrary, poorly-defined concept out of context, without even saying what context you took it from, and then expecting useful debate is ridiculous. There is no general principle that the simplest interpretation is best, or even partially correct, and proper debate is futile without prior agreement as to context and basic assumptions.

I've never seen such a debate because the debate recurses on agreements of context and assumptions.

Read more widely then. One example of such a debate exists in the page AlgebraicHoopConstruction.

Gee, a math discussion. That certainly applies to religious arguments that are based on nothing but faith.

It's appropriate because this isn't a religious argument. You put forward a supposed fallacy based on a poorly-defined, out-of-context proposition and a particular, somewhat arbitrary (though perhaps simplest) interpretation. The consequent discussion has nothing to do with religious faith, and went nowhere because of the nature of where it started.

Why is it poorly defined? It seems quite clear to me. Why is it out of context? What more context do you require before being able to think.

It's poorly defined because no definitions are given. It's out of context because you give no context at all. It's not thinking that's prevented, but useful debate.

''Then every word in the definition would need a definition and so on and so on. Only in math are you able to establish axioms and then lemmas. You understand exactly what the point is or you couldn't function in the real world. Actually, I can't understand your objections because you have given no definitions and no context. Thus you are speaking gibberish.''

Individual words have various meanings, but the appropriate meanings are usually evident if you give enough of the context of their use. It's been demonstrated that the key phrase in your quote has various interpretations. Without context, it's wrong to declare one specific interpretation is simplest and/or preferable. Long chains of definitions aren't needed here - it's reasonable to suppose we needn't define "man", for example, because your points are based on knowledge of man's nature, and any rewording (for greater precision) would not affect your original point. For similar reasons, I don't need to define each word of my reply in order to make myself clear. Your "only in math" point is not valid since axioms are never established - that's why they're called axioms (ie., assumptions).

Easy for you, then, because you can just play the ArgumentByDemandingDefinitions? game without having to play it yourself. Sounds like you also want to engage in the ArgumentByQuestioningAssumptions? game too. Very tiresome.

Not at all. The definitions needed could well be implicitly given by the context (plus a reasonable knowledge of English, of course). So why not give the full context so that we know what you're on about?

As I have no idea what context is missing for you because you are busy playing games rather than saying what information you would like. It seems quite simple to me. What information do you need to proceed?

Simple. If you invented the phrase, you are entitled to assign it a meaning. Probably, however, you recalled the phrase, or something like it, from other discussions or discourse. Or perhaps you think the phrase is an exact quote from a book. In the former case, what was the nature of the discussion? Religious tuition? In the latter case, cite the book - if it's an ancient text, it's probably already on the internet.

The early books of the bible are polytheistic. The other gods are real, it's just that Jehovah could whup any of 'em given a fair fight. You can even worship them, provided that Jehovah (the official national deity) comes first.

This page has a title which implies there was some other argument against God. Really? Somebody has an argument against God? Even one seems kinda lame; two has gotta be a joke of some kind. <ahem>