Is Atheism a crutch for people who don’t understand the complexity of God?

Quote from jonbig04:

Ok so you are now saying that 2+2=5 according to jonbigism is not invalid?
More...

If I "reordered" every letter in the alphabet to mean something else - a different semantic meaning, and I did not tell you about it... or if I changed the semantic meaning of every word or reference to entities... anything that I wrote or communicated with you would not make any sense to you - it would be nonsensical - without sense.

Similarly, when you say something without clarifying the context - as in the invented "jonbigism" - and then just later come up with an incomplete semantic context - then it was just nonsense, until you start adding some structure... i.e it is nonsense and invalid - because "jonbigism" was not complete and lacked the expressive power to consistently carry semantic meaning through it's syntactic structures, and lacked the ability to carry any proof or reasoning, since it was not "fixed", coherent... but rather wilfully at your command shifted meaning as you find it convenient.

THAT is what model theory is about.

When I helped you and we could define the context/"jonbigism" as elementary algebra with only 4 and 5 shifting their places, then it became something coherent - because we defined a sound structure - copied from elementary algebra. Look into universal algebra, soundness, model theory etc. and you will see what I am talking about... but you obviously don't do that - or just don't understand it - so you just keep spitting out nonsense...

:)
 
Quote from huh:

I guess my question would be if God created everything.....then where did God come from?......I guess my problem has always been the argument that "God just is"......I do believe that there is a "God" I'm just not sure what the form of "God" is. For all we know, we're in a giant fish bowl in some snotty alien kids bedroom....or the planets are some sort of cells in a gigantic creature....who knows.

I don't think the beginning of life was accidental, who knows if something or someone billions of years ago set things in motion that started life.
More...

The fishbowl parable fits well. Giant creature works. I've used a belly-of-the-whale type parable.

Jesus
 
Quote from I am...:

Funtionally then, religion and reasoning must be different words for the same thing. Since "religion" has been co-opted and twisted beyond recognition, "reason" might be an effective alternative. I would connect reason to truth inasmuch as reason does lead to truth, and truth is sane and reasonable. If reason does not lead to truth, it must be the kind of *logic* or *rhetoric* that builds and maintains illusion ["the universe"] as "truth". If the will to know truth is greater than the wish to believe lies, then reason will function effectively. If you rule out an absolute universal truth, then, if there is an absolute universal truth, your "reasoning" will not lead to the absolute universal truth.
...
On the quest for reason, I would posit this axiom which we both may agree on:
What must impose itself through fear, force, or intimidation must be entirely illegitamite.

Jesus
More...
I agree on the illegitimacy of oppression/suppression and this illegitimacy/act as being corruption/"sin" of reasoning/"faith".

One can use the faith of a "universally absolute" to order the world inside of one, and bring strength and integrity to oneself. But when this faith in a universally absolute is used to order others in the world around you, then it is not reasoning or "faith" anymore - it is oppression or suppression, authoritarian and aggressive.

Belief of a universally absolute must be voluntarily for it to have legitimacy, or else it will not lead to what is actually faith - agreed.
 
Quote from Gringinho:

If I "reordered" every letter in the alphabet to mean something else - a different semantic meaning, and I did not tell you about it... or if I changed the semantic meaning of every word or reference to entities... anything that I wrote or communicated with you would not make any sense to you - it would be nonsensical - without sense.

EXACTLY! It would be "nonsensical to me". Can't you see you just verified my point? But that doe not make it invalid, because it would still be valid TO YOU. That is SUBJECTIVITY.

Similarly, when you say something without clarifying the context - as in the invented "jonbigism" - and then just later come up with an incomplete semantic context - then it was just nonsense, until you start adding some structure... i.e it is nonsense and invalid - because "jonbigism" was not complete and lacked the expressive power to consistently carry semantic meaning through it's syntactic structures and carry any proof or reasoning, since it was not "fixed", coherent... but rather wilfully at your command shifted meaning as you find it convenient.

It was nonsense TO YOU, because as you said, I hadn't yet explained it to you. I could have been using jonbigism for years before this successfully (which makes it, in your terms, valid). When I explained it to you, you reversed your position and then said that 2+2=5, in the context of jonbigism was valid. The fact that you hadn't been explained how jonbigism works only means that it was nonsensical to you, and sensical (valid) for me, which as I have been saying means it is SUBJECTIVE.



THAT is what model theory is about.

When I helped you and we could define the context/"jonbigism" as elementary algebra with only 4 and 5 shifting places, then it became something coherent

As I just said, for all you know I could have been using jonbigism for years before this, making complete sense to me, but being "nonsensical" to you. After you asked me to explain it to you, and I did, it began to make sense. at which point you changed your position and said that it was valid. It was "valid" the whole time, after all I could have been using it for years.


First you said it was invalid, now you say its valid. Did it change at all? What changed about jonbigism in 45 minutes that caused you to reverse your position? Nothing changed, it was just explained to you because you asked me to explain it. Just because something is "nonsensical" to you, doesn't mean its "invalid". You now agree that its valid because it makes sense to you, but what you need to realize that it was valid the whole time. You judge something validity by whether it makes sense to you, and that simply doesnt work as has been evidenced in this example. You judged it by saying it was "invalid" based on the fact that it was "nonsensical" to you. When it became sensical you changed your mind, so obviously you were wrong the first time and judging something solely on whether it makes sense to you doesn't work. This couldnt have worked any better for me and proves my point completely, with your participation.
More...
 
Quote from jonbig04:

It would be "nonsensical to me". Can't you see you just verified my point? But that doe not make it invalid, because it would still be valid TO YOU. That is SUBJECTIVITY.
...
First you said it was invalid, now you say its valid. Did it change at all? What changed about jonbigism in 45 minutes that caused you to reverse your position? Nothing changed, it was just explained to you because you asked me to explain it.
...
More...

You still don't get it, do you... look at the references that I have been providing you, and I even spelled it out to you in my previous post. Here goes again --- because now I'm understanding that you are in fact "slow" (to put it nicely):

"jonbigism" was pure nonsense and if I hadn't told you "elementary algebra" as the foundation with 4 and 5 switching their places - then it would still be what it was in the beginning - nonsense.

It is NOT about "subjectivism" - it is about integrity of structure - being able to hold reasoning, proofs and consistent meaning. In fact - it is about soundness and ultimately sanity.

If you have a belief system without structure or a structure that does not allow consistency, completeness and the connection between semantic syntax and verification - then the whole belief becomes irrational, unreasonable etc. A statement according to this belief will not be valid - because there are no valid structures...

It has nothing to do with being "subjective", it has with being "coherent" and showing integrity. Any belief system not having these characteristics is not sustainable - because it can not be communicated over from one entity to another - and it cannot even consistently carry a statement with meaning from one day to another.

You know nothing about consistency, philosophy, logic, reasoning, epistemology ... you are just a small-time poser trying to put big words in your mouth. You have failed miserably to impress or show otherwise - that's your single consistency.
 
To I Am:
Just to elaborate a little further...

Communicating an inner belief is not an act of illegitimacy, but there is certainly a "grey area" as to what role and impact are being used to communicate this belief - without imposing the inner belief and faith on others or things surrounding anyone. The responsibility in communicating faith is therefore extremely complex, since it is very easy to turn from voluntarily into authoritarian and imposed belief.

Pointing out errors and debating is consensual, but forcing belief is an act of oppression of others and suppression of their freedom of thought. Therefore the education of children is very complicated, with neutrality being important initially in order of not imposing oneself, and "faith" is best left to a mature stage where someone are equipped to voluntarily accept faith. That way - one avoids corrupting the surroundings or the mind of others - i.e avoid the temptation of a "sinful act".
 
Quote from Gringinho:

You still don't get it, do you... look at the references that I have been providing you, and I even spelled it out to you in my previous post. Here goes again --- because now I'm understanding that you are in fact "slow" (to put it nicely):

"jonbigism" was pure nonsense and if I hadn't told you "elementary algebra" as the foundation with 4 and 5 switching their places - then it would still be what it was in the beginning - nonsense.

It is NOT about "subjectivism" - it is about integrity of structure - being able to hold reasoning, proofs and consistent meaning. In fact - it is about soundness and ultimately sanity.

If you have a belief system without structure or a structure that does not allow consistency, completeness and the connection between semantic syntax and verification - then the whole belief becomes irrational, unreasonable etc. A statement according to this belief will not be valid - because there are no valid structures...

It has nothing to do with being "subjective", it has with being "coherent" and showing integrity. Any belief system not having these characteristics are not sustainable - because they can not be communicated over from one entity to another - and it cannot even consistently carry a meaning from one day to another.

You know nothing about consistency, philosophy, logic, reasoning, epistemology ... you are just a small-time poser trying to put big words in your mouth. You have miserably failed to impress or show otherwise - that's your single consistency.
More...



Please.

Ok I'll put it VERY plain form for you, since you seem not to be able to grasp what you have proven with your OWN answers. Your defensiveness is understandable. I would be the same way if I was saying one thing (jonbigism is invalid) and than saying another thing (jonbigism is valid) 45 minutes later. Don't think your attempts to change the subject (by bringing up the evolution from yesterday's debate) and dance around my question ( I had to ask you to answer the question on many different occasions) went unnoticed either. Its obvious why you are becoming so defensive :)


1.Your first said jonbigism was not valid.

2.When I asked why, you said it lacked coherence, definition etc etc.

3.I took your point and explained to you that, coincidentally, jonbigism is the same as standard algebra, except the 4 and 5 switch places. This means that jonbigism in fact is coherent and logical and, by your reasoning in number 1, is "valid"

4.After I explained that to you, you changed your position and then said it was "valid".

So what changed between step 1 (when you said it wasn't valid) and step 4 (you said it was valid)? The only thing that changed is that i explained jonbigism to you. Thats it. So following YOUR logic, something isn't valid, unless it makes sense to YOU...SUBJECTIVITY! You said that it had to be logical, coherent etc to be valid. Ok, fair enough, but it was logical and coherent before I explained it to you. But since you did not yet know that the only difference between jonbigism and algebra is that the 4 and 5 are switched, you said it was "not valid". IT WAS VALID THE WHOLE TIME, YOU JUST WEREN'T AWARE OF IT!


This is a perfect example of what I have been saying the whole time. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean its invalid. Whether something is logical, or nonsensical, or whatever is completely subjective. You proved my point for me! lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top