Reply With Quote
You're just using a nebulous term "prime mover" as an escape hatch. It's circular reasoning. There is existence because the prime mover, who exists because there is existence.
Wouldn't "thing" be just as much an attribute?
You realize dictionaries focus on colloquial definitions, right?
Yes, hence me saying, "...I would assume you're either mistaken in what you think the word "bachelor" means...". My assumption that you didn't know the definition would mean I wouldn't deem you illogical.There's a difference between believing a married man is single and believing a man who calls himself a bachelor is married, if you don't know the definitions of the words. In that instance the belief would be illogical to you but logical to the person who believes it, or you can dismiss it by saying they don't actually believe it when they say they do. You can educate them and they will change their belief, but at that moment, they believe what they claim to believe.
You're just using a nebulous term "prime mover" as an escape hatch. It's circular reasoning. There is existence because the prime mover, who exists because there is existence.
Wouldn't "thing" be just as much an attribute?
I wasn't the first person to bring up the PM on this board, so it's not like I made it up as a trump card. As you know, there are other extensions of god made by others that do not assert he is the prime mover (those who speak of lesser gods in polytheistic religions for example). So it's not meaningless for me to make that connection at all.
Depends on what you mean by "thing". If you mean a physical object, then yes. If you just mean an concept, then no.Wouldn't "thing" be just as much an attribute?
So then does the dictionary define "colloquial" wrongly as well? What book do you suggest I use to be on the same page as you where definitions are concerned?
You seem to believe that all people think it concepts or images when some just accept statements without knowing their true definitions. I knew a girl who believed the bible could not be burned, literally, because she misunderstood the meaning of a passage. How is that different than someone not understanding the meaning of a word?Yes, hence me saying, "...I would assume you're either mistaken in what you think the word "bachelor" means...". My assumption that you didn't know the definition would mean I wouldn't deem you illogical.
It actually is meaningless since you don't say he's the only prime mover.
You can just listen to my definitions. Even if you don't agree with them, you know what I mean since I clarify at the beginning. Like you know what I mean when I say something is "illogical" even if you don't think that's what "illogical" means.
It's not. She was mistaken. She wasn't illogical. People can hold wrong beliefs, and do all the time.You seem to believe that all people think it concepts or images when some just accept statements without knowing their true definitions. I knew a girl who believed the bible could not be burned, literally, because she misunderstood the meaning of a passage. How is that different than someone not understanding the meaning of a word?
Not really. I could care less if there was/is one god or millions. That meant nothing to the thread we were discussing this in.
Then they stop saying so.
I'll see your Hawking, and raise you an Einstein:
Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the at ude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.
Einstein takes stabs at both sides - most believers are children, and atheists are mad at their parents:
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an at ude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
In order for "prime mover" to define a god, there has to be a first cause. If there is no first cause then there is no prime mover ergo no god. How can you define god as something that hasn't been established to exist either? The point of defining the unknown is to make it relate to the known so it can be conceptualized. You're only moving the god further into the unknown and putting the term "prime mover' in it's place. You're renaming the unknown god.
Einstein was in a day and age where he would have been crucified if he said he was atheist. You didn't see many professed atheists in those days, and the closet was full of gays. However, I find it amusing that people look to the science experts as to their beliefs in the supernatural. They do not dabble in such things. When pressed, they will offer an opinion, but it's no better than anyone's opinion. The "we cannot know" excuse is worn out and has been debunked many times over on different levels.
So...in a nuts ...don't believe in God and get a disease named after a baseball player. Even though you're a genius physicist. What a slap in the face. Hey...at least it's not, "Al Jolsen's Disease". (no racist)
So?
I have no idea why that's hard for you to get. You know what I mean when I say "prime mover" (in fact, you're the one you first said it to me), so by me extending "god" that way, you now understand what I mean. That's the point of making extensions. It's not to ground things in reality, at least not directly. If I saw there was no first cause, then I'd believe there was no prime mover and therefore no god.How can you define god as something that hasn't been established to exist either? The point of defining the unknown is to make it relate to the known so it can be conceptualized. You're only moving the god further into the unknown and putting the term "prime mover' in it's place. You're renaming the unknown god.
Like if I defined "Frodo Baggins" to be the hobbit who destroyed the One Ring and ending Sauron's reign, it would be a make sense. That's true even though that definite description is not any more based in reality than Frodo is.
how does quantum mechanics fit into Biblical world-distortion?
Is SH or anybody else necessarily a bad person, immoral, etc, and to be trashed because they "don't believe in (your simplistic, ignorant flavor of) God"?
I think the mood of the thread is mostly that no one cares what Hawking thinks about god. Hawking is no more qualified to speak about this than anyone else is, so there's no need to either champion his view or attack him for it.
Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the at ude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.
If we go by the rationale of the geniuses in here - this Einstein fellow is a really big idiot...
The "god" question...
Idiot: "just give me a yes or no answer!"
No he wasn't.
So an unknown has unknown attributes and you somehow think that's defining the unknown?
Since I said it first, you must have defined god in other terms prior to that. If I say your unknown has unknown attributes, would you think I have assigned attributes to the unknown?I have no idea why that's hard for you to get. You know what I mean when I say "prime mover" (in fact, you're the one you first said it to me), so by me extending "god" that way, you now understand what I mean. That's the point of making extensions. It's not to ground things in reality, at least not directly. If I saw there was no first cause, then I'd believe there was no prime mover and therefore no god.
That's not the same as saying "something undefined is defined by something undefined"Like if I defined "Frodo Baggins" to be the hobbit who destroyed the One Ring and ending Sauron's reign, it would be a make sense. That's true even though that definite description is not any more based in reality than Frodo is.
"Being the PM" is not an unknown attribute. It's very clear what that means.
I did extend god was being the one who set the universe into motion before you used a more succinct term.Since I said it first, you must have defined god in other terms prior to that. If I say your unknown has unknown attributes, would you think I have assigned attributes to the unknown?
Again, you seem to have a hang up between something being undefined, and something being unconfirmed. We all (or at least you) know what I mean when I say "first cause" or "prime mover". Therefore, the term "god" is defined just fine. But the existence of a PM is not confirmed, so the existence of god is also not confirmed.That's not the same as saying "something undefined is defined by something undefined"
Essentially, I'm arguing that god = prime mover. We spared over whether it makes sense to believe a prime mover exists. You didn't sit there and act like you had no idea what I meant by PM. You went along with it just fine, since everything was defined. But you want me to have actual proof of god's existence (actual physical extensions). If I had that, we wouldn't even be debating, just like we wouldn't if you had proof of a causeless effect.
Until all humans Including ..(Atheist ,Muslims, and Christians can finally agree there had to be some sort of "Designer" instead of a Random explosion in space and four billion years later two horny apes were ing on the beach and "poof!" there you are ed up Explorer channel oh you precious missing link......
when those ed up theories finally fades away only then
we can really move forward.....
Last edited by mouse; 09-29-2014 at 05:39 PM.
No. But, we may be able to move forward when people like yourself understand that evolution and the existence of a god are two entirely different discussions. The existence of a god being, thus far, impossible for us to show evidence of. Evolution, on the other hand, having mountains of proof as to its validity.Until all humans Including ..(Atheist ,Muslims, and Christians can finally agree there had to be some sort of "Designer" instead of a Random explosion in space and four billion years later two horny apes were ing on the beach and "poof!" there you are ed up Explorer channel oh you precious missing link......
when those ed up theories finally fades away only then
we can really move forward.....
What you should focus your energy toward discrediting is Abiogenesis. It attempts to describe how life arose from nonlife. The evolution genie is already out of the bottle, along with heliocentrism, etc. We know species change over time. We still don't know where life came from, and evolution doesn't attempt to answer that question. Your "poof" betrays your misunderstanding. Even the Pope and Catholic Church have accepted it.
But it's unknown if there actually was a prime mover or a need for one. Saying god is the prime mover is just saying the prime mover is the prime mover or god is god. It does not gain any ground.
Any other analogy you try to use will fail because, for example, in LotR, we know it's fictional. We know they are characters in a book. Even if they weren't, they have a form and a substance that we can envision even if it's not accurate.
I think it's a cop out. I don't think you can believe something exists without having a better grasp on it than "first cause", because there's nothing about a first cause that screams out "must be god". However you're saying a first cause is god or god is the first cause. That doesn't make god first cause like.. or make the first cause god like, it's just using the same nebulous image with two different names.
Even that is a nebulous concept. What does it mean to set the universe into motion? We aren't discussing existence here, just definitions. Again you've used a concept that's not well defined to define an unknown.I did extend god was being the one who set the universe into motion before you used a more succinct term.
If you cannot define god by saying "it's a god" then you cannot define it by using the tautology "it's a prime mover". It's just a different word that means god.Again, you seem to have a hang up between something being undefined, and something being unconfirmed. We all (or at least you) know what I mean when I say "first cause" or "prime mover". Therefore, the term "god" is defined just fine. But the existence of a PM is not confirmed, so the existence of god is also not confirmed.
I know what the term "prime mover" means. I also know what the term "god" means, I went along with that as well. They both mean the same thing. You just want to use one to define the other and that doesn't advance the conversation. You've not defined god at all by calling it the prime mover just as you've not defined the prime mover by calling it god.Essentially, I'm arguing that god = prime mover. We spared over whether it makes sense to believe a prime mover exists. You didn't sit there and act like you had no idea what I meant by PM. You went along with it just fine, since everything was defined. But you want me to have actual proof of god's existence (actual physical extensions). If I had that, we wouldn't even be debating, just like we wouldn't if you had proof of a causeless effect.
I'd be more willing to accept that, if you ever found a prime mover to exist, you'd call it god rather than, if you ever found a god to exist, you'd call it prime mover.
Last edited by DMC; 09-29-2014 at 08:36 PM.
Easily the most important part of you post. I assert that god=PM. That's not a necessary extension. There were people who believed that Ares was a god while also believing that Ares was not the PM. You know that I consider god to be the PM; therefore you accept that I have made an extension for the term. So my position is not illogical.
That's just a way to try to get out of the argument. It doesn't matter than LotR is fictional. Definite descriptions are just ways to tag ideas. There's no difference between "real" ideas and "fake" ones.Any other analogy you try to use will fail because, for example, in LotR, we know it's fictional. We know they are characters in a book. Even if they weren't, they have a form and a substance that we can envision even if it's not accurate.
For your benefit, though, I will give you another one:
Let's say I assert the belief: Aliens exist. I extend "alien" to "intelligent lifeforms on a planet other than Earth." We have no idea if there are aliens, and we don't know there are intelligent lifeforms. Indeed, there's a host of questions about what it means to be intelligent, what it means to be a lifeform, even what it means be on a planet. But no one thinks that it's impossible to hold that belief.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
