You're throwin' 'em, but I'm jus' not catchin' 'em. Run that by me again
*real slow like.*
>>But does not make it subjective to physics, which is the point.
>
>Are the effects of his alleged interventions physical?
Yes, according to the Iranaean viewpoint.
>>>Is Whitehead's God detectable? Does His existence imply anything? If so,
>>>then the claim that He exists is a scientific claim and therefore refutable
>>>in theory.
>>
>>Refutable in theory? Demonstrate. Give me cases where it could be evidenced
>>that God -- any God -- can not exist.
>
>If God exists then situation X would be true.
>Situation X is not true.
>Therefore God does not exist.
Okay, then we need to find a situation "x" then...
>(You will have to supply your own divine implication. If you can't then
>God is undetectable and doesn't affect this reality.)
By this argument, atoms did not affect this reality until such time as they
were detectable; DNA had no bearing on reproduction until such time as it
was detectable, etc... is this what you are saying? We have to be able to
see something before it has power? Although this is a familiar
religious/philosophical position, I don't see it meshing with science.
>If there is no way to tell the difference between your God and a
>non-corporeal, invisible Living Blue Whale then I rest my case.
;-) Got tired, did you? I mean, resting before you're done.
>>The statement "There is no God" can not be a scientific statement, because
>>there is no way to prove the non-existence of God; just as the statement
>>"There is no Living Blue Whale in anyone's office, anywhere in the
>>universe" is a non-scientific statement. I mean, how would you check?
>
>I think you missed my point. Some things cannot exist by definition.
>The part about it being in my office is part of the definition that
>which makes its existence impossible.
Why does the part about it being in your office make it's existence
impossible by definition? Hey! For all I know, your office is in a bloody
great aqarium!
>You can easily define a God that does exist. For example, Moku the Deity
>is a small flower that lives on a planet in another galaxy. I have no
>problem being agnostic with respect to Moku the Deity. It is when you
>start attributing standard divine attributes to your deity that you
>run into problems of logical incoherence.
Demonstrate. Oh. You're gonna.
>Does your God ever communicate with humans? What powers does He have?
>Can you say anything about Him at all? Unless you give me some hints then
>there is no use talking about His alleged existence.
So you are not an Athiest. You are mainly an Agnostic, you just fail to
believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian diety. Alright, I can dig that.
I mean, I *did* say that Agnosticism is the only logical position.
>>Oh: you can say that you don't believe in God because there's not enough
>>evidence yet. But an Athiest claims that there will *be* no evidence,
>>because there IS NO GOD. So you remain an Agnostic.
>
>Real atheists claim no such thing. Sorry, but I think you're merely
>attacking a strawman here. If you don't believe me, I urge you to check out
>http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Ah! I get it. "Real" athiests don't believe this, "real" christians don't
believe that, "real" men don't eat quiche. Sorry I wasted your time. I
didn't realize we were talking about anything real...
This has devolved into issoisnotism. But since perhaps you think I'm
pulling this out of my butt, John W. Hick, who I've quoted here earlier, says:
"Beginning at the negative end [of attitudes towards God], _atheism_
(not-God-ism) is the belief that there is no God of any kind; agnosticism,
which means literally "not-know-ism," is in this context the belief that we
do not have sufficent reason either to affirm or deny God's existence.
Skepticism simply means doubting...." (_Philosophy of Religion_, pg 5)
Now, considering that you have said that whether or not you consider God's
existence to be real depends on the formulation of God that one puts forth,
I'd have to say that you claim that there is not enough evidence to affirm
or deny the existence of Gods in general.
Obviously, the source above and the source you refer to are in disagreement
about what athiesm is. I'd also have to say that every athiest I've ever
met, *besides* you, has not differentiated between "disbelief" and "claim
of nonexistence," and an argument over the nature of this term comes as a
complete and total surprise to me. Eh?
Tell you what: you don't tell me I'm not a real Christian, and I won't tell
you you're not a real Athiest. Deal?
--John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Williams ICQ Address: 1213689 prefect@tricon.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various Artists: Raising the Tide of Mediocrity for Two Years
http://www.3wave.com/~prefect/