IS and OUGHT

[Sculptor]

I remember my son and his friend playing at being super heroes in the garden when they where both quite young.

One would say something like; "I've just shot you".

And the other would reply, "it doesn't matter, I'm bullet proof".

"I shot you with a bazooka".

"Well I'm bazooka proof, as well".

I sometimes wonder if the idea of God was first dreamt up by a couple of kids playing in a garden.

My Dad is a policemen so ner nicky ner ner!!

Well MY Dad is an ineffable eternal being, omnipotent, omnipresent and omni - every thing else and NO RETURNS

So it makes sense to be agnostic as God is not falsifiable. Neither is God verifiable unless the traditional meaning of 'God' is psychologised when a verifiable case can be made for God.

Are you agnostic about the Great Buggblatter Beast of Traal?
Or agnostic about the tooth fairy?
How about being agnostic about salmon fishing on the surface of the sun?

[Immanuel Can]

God is cause of everything, Who is Himself uncaused.

Yes, that's the idea behind I AM.

God is cause of things and events , not in the sense of a locomotive making a train of carriages to move, but in the sense that God is the ground of being of all the things and events.

The "ground." Perhaps.

It depends on what one means by that claim. He's certainly not the Author of evil events and actions. We can look to ourselves for much of that, and beyond that, to the world as we've shaped it.

But regarding the actual existence of things, minus what we do and cause with them, that claim might be right.

[Harbal]

So it makes sense to be agnostic as God is not falsifiable. Neither is God verifiable unless the traditional meaning of 'God' is psychologised when a verifiable case can be made for God.

I think what would make most sense is to not give the matter enough consideration to even form an opinion, but when people keep raising it and telling you that you are not right in the head because you don't believe something absurd, it sort of forces you to adopt a position on the subject. I would much prefer to treat it as a none issue.

[Harbal]

My Dad is a policemen so ner nicky ner ner!!

Well MY Dad is an ineffable eternal being, omnipotent, omnipresent and omni - every thing else and NO RETURNS

My daughter used to tell everyone that her mother was a P.E. teacher. Which was more plausible than saying she was God, but it was just as untrue.

[Belinda]

God is cause of everything, Who is Himself uncaused.

Yes, that's the idea behind I AM.

God is cause of things and events , not in the sense of a locomotive making a train of carriages to move, but in the sense that God is the ground of being of all the things and events.

The "ground." Perhaps.

It depends on what one means by that claim. He's certainly not the Author of evil events and actions. We can look to ourselves for much of that, and beyond that, to the world as we've shaped it.

But regarding the actual existence of things, minus what we do and cause with them, that claim might be right.

So far, so good. Moral evil is natural evil you won't agree with, because you believe in Free Will.

[Immanuel Can]

God is cause of everything, Who is Himself uncaused.

Yes, that's the idea behind I AM.

God is cause of things and events , not in the sense of a locomotive making a train of carriages to move, but in the sense that God is the ground of being of all the things and events.

The "ground." Perhaps.

It depends on what one means by that claim. He's certainly not the Author of evil events and actions. We can look to ourselves for much of that, and beyond that, to the world as we've shaped it.

But regarding the actual existence of things, minus what we do and cause with them, that claim might be right.

So far, so good.

Moral evil is natural evil you won't agree with, because you believe in Free Will.

Something's not clear in the punctuation or syntax of that sentence. I'm not sure I can catch your meaning there.

Would you be so kind as to indulge me and reword, please?

[Sculptor]

My Dad is a policemen so ner nicky ner ner!!

Well MY Dad is an ineffable eternal being, omnipotent, omnipresent and omni - every thing else and NO RETURNS

My daughter used to tell everyone that her mother was a P.E. teacher. Which was more plausible than saying she was God, but it was just as untrue.

And was there any advantage to her using this deception?

[Immanuel Can]

Age brings up a good point. How are we defining atheism here IC?

IC is defining it in such a way that best enables him to attack it. I believe it is known as constructing a straw man.

No, actually.

I'm defining it in two ways:

1. What the word actually means, literally.

2. The only version of Atheism that doesn't instantly end up contradicting itself.

So I think it's fair to say I'm being as charitable as I can. It's just that Atheism really has nothing much to say for itself. It's really the implications we're discussing, because the definition is pretty straightforward.

Atheism = the affirmation that there is no God, and no gods.

agnosticism = any degree of doubt as to the existence of a God or gods.

And actually, this is the distinction that Richard Dawkins prefers...and we're hardly pals.

[Harbal]

And was there any advantage to her using this deception?

Not really, she just had a thing about P.E. teachers, I don't know where it came from. And she never expressed any wish to become one herself. It was most peculiar. It did cause my wife some embarrassment on one occasion when one of the teachers at my daughters school asked her where she taught.

[Harbal]

Age brings up a good point. How are we defining atheism here IC?

IC is defining it in such a way that best enables him to attack it. I believe it is known as constructing a straw man.

No, actually.

I'm defining it in two ways:

1. What the word actually means, literally.

2. The only version of Atheism that doesn't instantly end up contradicting itself.

So I think it's fair to say I'm being as charitable as I can. It's just that Atheism really has nothing much to say for itself. It's really the implications we're discussing, because the definition is pretty straightforward.

Atheism = the affirmation that there is no God, and no gods.

That part of the description wasn't the problem, it was all the other attributes of atheism that you took it upon yourself to attach to the definition that turned it into a straw man.

[Immanuel Can]

IC is defining it in such a way that best enables him to attack it. I believe it is known as constructing a straw man.

No, actually.

I'm defining it in two ways:

1. What the word actually means, literally.

2. The only version of Atheism that doesn't instantly end up contradicting itself.

So I think it's fair to say I'm being as charitable as I can. It's just that Atheism really has nothing much to say for itself. It's really the implications we're discussing, because the definition is pretty straightforward.

Atheism = the affirmation that there is no God, and no gods.

That part of the description wasn't the problem, it was all the other attributes of atheism that you took it upon yourself to attach to the definition that turned it into a straw man.

Those are implications of Atheism, not definitions of it. Physicalism / Materialism and amorality are logical outflows of Atheism, but are not part of Atheism by definition.

That's cold comfort, though: because where you get the first one, you're going to get the other two eventually, too. There aren't any logical alternatives, and while people can live irrationally for a long time, eventually the logic of their basic beliefs bleeds through and erodes the traditions they no longer believe are real.

So it means that Atheists have to end up somewhere on the Physicalist-Materialist spectrum, and over generations, gradually lose confidence in morality as well. It's just how the logic of the thing works.

[Harbal]

Those are implications of Atheism, not definitions of it.

Your implications.

That's cold comfort, though: because where you get the first one, you're going to get the other two eventually, too. There aren't any logical alternatives, and while people can live irrationally for a long time, eventually the logic of their basic beliefs bleeds through and erodes the traditions they no longer believe are real.

So it means that Atheists have to end up somewhere on the Physicalist-Materialist spectrum, and over generations, gradually lose confidence in morality as well. It's just how the logic of the thing works.

But that isn't what works out in practice, so your logic has gone wrong somewhere.

[Immanuel Can]

That part of the description wasn't the problem, it was all the other attributes of atheism that you took it upon yourself to attach to the definition that turned it into a straw man.

Those are implications of Atheism, not definitions of it.

Your implications.

No...Atheism's own.

If you think it's otherwise, show how Atheism can rationalize anything else but some form of Materialism and amorality. I'd be interested in seeing any such argument.

That's cold comfort, though: because where you get the first one, you're going to get the other two eventually, too. There aren't any logical alternatives, and while people can live irrationally for a long time, eventually the logic of their basic beliefs bleeds through and erodes the traditions they no longer believe are real.

So it means that Atheists have to end up somewhere on the Physicalist-Materialist spectrum, and over generations, gradually lose confidence in morality as well. It's just how the logic of the thing works.

But that isn't what works out in practice, so your logic has gone wrong somewhere.

No, the logic is correct, if you read me (or Nietzsche) carefully. I wrote, "over the generations." That means that for a time, society can roll on its old, traditionalist momentum, even while the "engine" of that momentum has been shut off and killed. But it rolls to a stop, eventually; and inevitably so.

Nietzsche says exactly the same in "The Parable of the Madman." That's why the madman says, "I have come too early...my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves."

That's a direct quotation, by the way. (underlining my emphasis). He's speaking of the "deed" of "killing" God. And it's also Nietzsche's madman who says, ..."how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?"

You see, once God is gone, the moral compass and the compass of teleology are also gone. We have no way of orienting ourselves to the values we practice every day, no way of any longer proving to ourselves what objective right and wrong might be. It's that that throws us into amoralty...not instantly, as he says, but inevitably, when "the event" reaches our "ears," so to speak.

And that, he says, takes time.

[Harbal]

Look, IC, if your conscience is clear regarding how honest you've been with your arguments, it's fine. I was just a bit worried about your soul, that's all.

[Belinda]

My Dad is a policemen so ner nicky ner ner!!

Well MY Dad is an ineffable eternal being, omnipotent, omnipresent and omni - every thing else and NO RETURNS

So it makes sense to be agnostic as God is not falsifiable. Neither is God verifiable unless the traditional meaning of 'God' is psychologised when a verifiable case can be made for God.

Are you agnostic about the Great Buggblatter Beast of Traal?
Or agnostic about the tooth fairy?
How about being agnostic about salmon fishing on the surface of the sun?

I imagine improbability is ultimately subjective or intersubjective. My scientific knowledge is not too good but such as it is your examples are impossible. That existence is an orderly, nomic, affair seems to me to be possible.