Punishment contradictions

[RankStranger]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Would you agree that it works the other way round, Rank?

 

What I would call the false certainty that there is always a gap into which god can be inserted.

 

The false certainty of using our ignorance to justify believing in things for which there is no evidence.

 

Isn't that an equally dangerous trap?

 

The sword of false certainty cutting both ways rather than just cutting one way?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This ignorance you speak of, that I'm filling with God.  You describe it as a gap, in reference I think to the God of the Gaps argument.  That's a good choice because I think we'll both start with the same understanding of that classic.

 

Bjt first I have to ask what this gap really looks like... before we discuss whether or not God can plausibly fill it.  Do you see these gaps as narrow, quickly filling gaps into which random shallow superstitions are being squeezed? Tighter every day while Science marches toward Truth(TM)?

 

Or are there other limits you would put on this gap?  How would you describe the God Gap?  

 

Or is it a gap at all?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

Or is it a gap at all?

 

[RankStranger]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Damn right.  What if it's an abyss?  What if it's a universe?

 

Remember, all we have to argue over are shadows on a cave wall.  We can't see in the 4th dimension, and we know it's there.  The only Truth(TM) we have available to us, from a scientific perspective is limited to this planet,  and what we can see from this planet.

 

We don't know what we can't see.  And we don't know what we don't know.

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, RankStranger said:

Damn right.  What if it's an abyss?  What if it's a universe?

 

Remember, all we have to argue over are shadows on a cave wall.  We can't see in the 4th dimension, and we know it's there.  The only Truth(TM) we have available to us, from a scientific perspective is limited to this planet,  and what we can see from this planet.

 

We don't know what we can't see.  And we don't know what we don't know.

 

I think you've almost answered your own question, Rank.  (What is this Gap?)

 

You recognize that science doesn't prove anything but only accumulates more and better evidence for things.  But no matter how much evidence there is, it will never amount to 100%.  Only proofs are 100% and they aren't used in empirical science, only in math.

 

Some insert god into the gap that will always be left, citing the infinite combinations of possibilities and the impossibility of humans discovering everything and knowing everything there is to know.  By doing this they effectively raise the bar infinitely high and claim that since humans can never reach that bar, god must exist.

 

What they are doing is shutting down the possibility of having their beliefs challenged by evidence.

 

 

You've almost answered your own question a second time, too.

 

Yes, we can only see the universe from this planet.  And what we do see out there is not how the universe looks now, but how it was hundreds or millions or billions of years ago.  Therefore astronomical science is obliged to use assumptions about what lies out there.  We've only visited and directly measured a tiny fraction of the universe.

 

And to some, this generates another convenient gap into which they can insert god.  Assumptions aren't knowledge, they will claim.  Assumptions aren't bona fide data.  They are just assumptions and therefore, because we don't actually know what's out there, god must exist.

 

 

You see the pattern, Rank?

 

Wherever there is an exploitable chink in the way science works some people will try and force that open and insert god in there.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Yes, we can only see the universe from this planet.  And what we do see out there is not how the universe looks now, but how it was hundreds or millions or billions of years ago.

If a god really did create all of those galaxies, and supernovae, and nebulae, and black holes, why would he care whether or not a guy plays with his own bagooter?  Doesn't he have more important things to do?

[TABA]

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

why would he care whether or not a guy plays with his own bagooter? 

Wait - he cares about that?  Shit!

Shit, shit, shit…

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, TABA said:

Wait - he cares about that?  Shit!

Shit, shit, shit…

Don't know whether to shit or go blind, huh?

[Casualfanboy16]

37 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If a god really did create all of those galaxies, and supernovae, and nebulae, and black holes, why would he care whether or not a guy plays with his own bagooter?  Doesn't he have more important things to do?

Maybe he likes it, but just doesn't want to come out of the 4th dimensional closet yet.

[Casualfanboy16]

34 minutes ago, TABA said:

Wait - he cares about that?  Shit!

Shit, shit, shit…

It's not like God couldn't see it cumming- I mean coming. Idk why he cares so much.

[RankStranger]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I think you've almost answered your own question, Rank.  (What is this Gap?)

 

You recognize that science doesn't prove anything but only accumulates more and better evidence for things.  But no matter how much evidence there is, it will never amount to 100%.  Only proofs are 100% and they aren't used in empirical science, only in math.

 

Some insert god into the gap that will always be left, citing the infinite combinations of possibilities and the impossibility of humans discovering everything and knowing everything there is to know.  By doing this they effectively raise the bar infinitely high and claim that since humans can never reach that bar, god must exist.

 

What they are doing is shutting down the possibility of having their beliefs challenged by evidence.

 

 

You've almost answered your own question a second time, too.

 

Yes, we can only see the universe from this planet.  And what we do see out there is not how the universe looks now, but how it was hundreds or millions or billions of years ago.  Therefore astronomical science is obliged to use assumptions about what lies out there.  We've only visited and directly measured a tiny fraction of the universe.

 

And to some, this generates another convenient gap into which they can insert god.  Assumptions aren't knowledge, they will claim.  Assumptions aren't bona fide data.  They are just assumptions and therefore, because we don't actually know what's out there, god must exist.

 

 

You see the pattern, Rank?

 

Wherever there is an exploitable chink in the way science works some people will try and force that open and insert god in there.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Yes, I've answered my question.  But I want your answer.

 

What does said "gap" look like?  If it's a 'gap', then it has limits.  A beginning and and end.  Can you describe those?

 

Or are you willing to admit that beyond the limits of our knowledge and understanding, there exists an entire universe or universes that we simply can't grasp as tiny little ants on our hill?

 

"God of the Gaps" is just a poor analogy, because there aren't merely 'gaps' in our understanding.  We don't understand 99.9999999999999999999999999% of our own universe.  And it ain't the only universe.

 

And yes, my faith isn't challenged by your alleged 'evidence'.  You've yet to provide any.

 

Quote

no matter how much evidence there is, it will never amount to 100%. 

 

The problem you have is that your alleged 'evidence' doesn't add up to even 1%

[RankStranger]

17 minutes ago, Casualfanboy16 said:

Maybe he likes it, but just doesn't want to come out of the 4th dimensional closet yet.

 

There are no walls or locked doors for a 4-dimensional being.

[Casualfanboy16]

21 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

There are no walls or locked doors for a 4-dimensional being.

Oh. Well, I guess it's obvious he's into it then. He just doesn't want to admit it.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

Yes, I've answered my question.  But I want your answer.

 

What does said "gap" look like?  If it's a 'gap', then it has limits.  A beginning and and end.  Can you describe those?

 

Or are you willing to admit that beyond the limits of our knowledge and understanding, there exists an entire universe or universes that we simply can't grasp as tiny little ants on our hill?

 

"God of the Gaps" is just a poor analogy, because there aren't merely 'gaps' in our understanding.  We don't understand 99.9999999999999999999999999% of our own universe.  And it ain't the only universe.

 

And yes, my faith isn't challenged by your alleged 'evidence'.  You've yet to provide any.

 

 

The problem you have is that your alleged 'evidence' doesn't add up to even 1%

 

Please don't get agitated, Rank.

 

You'll notice that I didn't cite the name of any particular member and the apologetic argument I've been describing has been used in many other places besides this forum.  I was referring to the generic use of the God of the Gaps argument, not your specific usage of it, ok?

 

Please chill.

 

 

If you recall I suggested that the use of this kind of argument cuts both ways.  Yes, there are limits to the evidence science can muster and this therefore leaves much unknown.  That's a given.  I won't even argue that.

 

I wrote that there could also be a false certainty in using our ignorance to posit the existence of things for which there is no evidence.  Let me explain further.

 

Taking cosmology as an example, our ignorance is vast and there is much that we neither know of or understand.  But to take this as a signal that we are justified in believing in the existence of things which we have no knowledge or evidence of, is, in my opinion, a mistake.  Here's why.

 

As far as I can see, we are free to believe in these unknown things, but we are not justified in claiming that they are real.  Not without evidence.

 

That's the key difference here.  The difference between the freedom to believe something in the privacy of our own minds and the necessary justification we should present to others, should we claim that these things are real.  The onus is always on the claim maker to justify their claim with evidence.  Since we are talking about things which are unknown and unsupported by evidence, that task, is... impossible.

 

So, I can privately believe that pink unicorns are real and nobody can gainsay me.  Nor do they have the right to tell that I can't believe in them.  But the moment I move from my position to one of claiming the reality of these unicorns, I place the burden of providing evidence for them upon myself.  If I don't provide any then, at best, I'm engaging in evidence-free speculation.

 

However, what I can do is to occupy the middle ground between my private belief in unicorns and my public claim that these things exist.  This is no problem at all and should be entirely acceptable to everyone.  Especially since it is recognized (see above) that our ignorance is vast and nobody can rule out what they don't know.

 

And here's why we get back to the God of the gaps argument.

 

Because we are talking about unknown things for which there is no evidence, people making this argument (not you specifically) can't be publicly claiming that these unknown things actually exist.  Instead, what they must be doing is claiming that they might exist.  The position of the middle ground that I described earlier.

 

And here's where I think (rightly or wrongly) the sword of false certainty cuts both ways.

 

Yes, these things might exist but equally they might not.  If no evidence can be presented to support their existence then we are left in a kind of might / might not limbo.  That's not a state of certainty.  That's a state of uncertainty.  It get us nowhere and decides nothing.

 

So, when some people (not you specifically) seem very certain that because human ignorance is vast, there must exist an equally vast gap into which a god can be inserted, their certainty sits on the shifting sands of the might / might not uncertainty.

 

This, I submit, is a false certainty.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

There are no walls or locked doors for a 4-dimensional being.

 

What about a 5-dimensional prison?

 

 

This is what I was referring to in my reply to you, Rank.

 

When someone posits that something for which we have no evidence might exist, they are doing so the basis of uncertainty, not certainty.

 

So, if you posit a 4-dimesional being, I can posit a 5-dimensional prison to hold that being.

 

Neither of us is right or wrong here and neither of us is any closer to the truth than the other.

 

We are both engaging in evidence-free speculation about unknowns.

 

Which is fine until one of us goes beyond that and claims that these 4 and 5 dimensional things are real.

 

Then the onus of presenting evidence for their claim needs to be satisfied.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

Yes, I've answered my question.  But I want your answer.

 

What does said "gap" look like?  If it's a 'gap', then it has limits.  A beginning and and end.  Can you describe those?

 

Or are you willing to admit that beyond the limits of our knowledge and understanding, there exists an entire universe or universes that we simply can't grasp as tiny little ants on our hill?

 

"God of the Gaps" is just a poor analogy, because there aren't merely 'gaps' in our understanding.  We don't understand 99.9999999999999999999999999% of our own universe.  And it ain't the only universe.

 

And yes, my faith isn't challenged by your alleged 'evidence'.  You've yet to provide any.

 

 

The problem you have is that your alleged 'evidence' doesn't add up to even 1%

He has already in one of his weak moments.  All he or anyone has to do is look down at their hands and there are infinite "gaps" in our very existence...the infinitely small gaps in our very makeup/identities.  Then we need to ignore the Scripture that suggests similarity as taking advantage of what science can't see.

 

Revelation 21:6

New International Version

6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.

 

To me it's also noteworthy that the Bible equates spirit to water...

[RankStranger]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Please don't get agitated, Rank.

 

You'll notice that I didn't cite the name of any particular member and the apologetic argument I've been describing has been used in many other places besides this forum.  I was referring to the generic use of the God of the Gaps argument, not your specific usage of it, ok?

 

Please chill.

 

 

If you recall I suggested that the use of this kind of argument cuts both ways.  Yes, there are limits to the evidence science can muster and this therefore leaves much unknown.  That's a given.  I won't even argue that.

 

I wrote that there could also be a false certainty in using our ignorance to posit the existence of things for which there is no evidence.  Let me explain further.

 

Taking cosmology as an example, our ignorance is vast and there is much that we neither know of or understand.  But to take this as a signal that we are justified in believing in the existence of things which we have no knowledge or evidence of, is, in my opinion, a mistake.  Here's why.

 

As far as I can see, we are free to believe in these unknown things, but we are not justified in claiming that they are real.  Not without evidence.

 

That's the key difference here.  The difference between the freedom to believe something in the privacy of our own minds and the necessary justification we should present to others, should we claim that these things are real.  The onus is always on the claim maker to justify their claim with evidence.  Since we are talking about things which are unknown and unsupported by evidence, that task, is... impossible.

 

So, I can privately believe that pink unicorns are real and nobody can gainsay me.  Nor do they have the right to tell that I can't believe in them.  But the moment I move from my position to one of claiming the reality of these unicorns, I place the burden of providing evidence for them upon myself.  If I don't provide any then, at best, I'm engaging in evidence-free speculation.

 

However, what I can do is to occupy the middle ground between my private belief in unicorns and my public claim that these things exist.  This is no problem at all and should be entirely acceptable to everyone.  Especially since it is recognized (see above) that our ignorance is vast and nobody can rule out what they don't know.

 

And here's why we get back to the God of the gaps argument.

 

Because we are talking about unknown things for which there is no evidence, people making this argument (not you specifically) can't be publicly claiming that these unknown things actually exist.  Instead, what they must be doing is claiming that they might exist.  The position of the middle ground that I described earlier.

 

And here's where I think (rightly or wrongly) the sword of false certainty cuts both ways.

 

Yes, these things might exist but equally they might not.  If no evidence can be presented to support their existence then we are left in a kind of might / might not limbo.  That's not a state of certainty.  That's a state of uncertainty.  It get us nowhere and decides nothing.

 

So, when some people (not you specifically) seem very certain that because human ignorance is vast, there must exist an equally vast gap into which a god can be inserted, their certainty sits on the shifting sands of the might / might not uncertainty.

 

This, I submit, is a false certainty.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

Ain't nobody getting agitated.  I appreciate you not running to the teacher this time 

 

Have we established yet that our ignorance as humans is not in fact a matter of 'gaps'?  But that we only understand the tiniest sliver of the universe?  With our lack of understanding being not a 'gap'... but damn near a whole universe?

 

My God of the Universe is fine with any science you want to throw at Him.  Surely you don't think that God is disproven by what we 'know' of biology or cosmology?  Do you?

 

As for false certainty... I've never claimed that I can prove to you or anybody that God is real.  I've only said that I have faith... which you seem to have a problem with.  Why would I even attempt to 'prove' my faith to you?  When faith isn't about 'proof' in the first place?

 

So if you're making a claim that 'God isn't real' or the like, that's fine.  Lay out your evidence if you want.  Make your case.  We'll see if I think it's worth my time to respond.

[RankStranger]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

What about a 5-dimensional prison?

 

 

This is what I was referring to in my reply to you, Rank.

 

When someone posits that something for which we have no evidence might exist, they are doing so the basis of uncertainty, not certainty.

 

So, if you posit a 4-dimesional being, I can posit a 5-dimensional prison to hold that being.

 

Neither of us is right or wrong here and neither of us is any closer to the truth than the other.

 

We are both engaging in evidence-free speculation about unknowns.

 

Which is fine until one of us goes beyond that and claims that these 4 and 5 dimensional things are real.

 

Then the onus of presenting evidence for their claim needs to be satisfied.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

I haven't made that claim, in bold.

 

Frankly I haven't even claimed that "God Is Real".  I've said that I have faith.  That's not a claim.

 

Does faith bother you, Walter?

[RankStranger]

51 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

He has already in one of his weak moments.  All he or anyone has to do is look down at their hands and there are infinite "gaps" in our very existence...the infinitely small gaps in our very makeup/identities.  Then we need to ignore the Scripture that suggests similarity as taking advantage of what science can't see.

 

Revelation 21:6

New International Version

6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.

 

To me it's also noteworthy that the Bible equates spirit to water...

 

IMO we all have faith that extends well beyond what science can tell us.  Maybe not faith in God, but faith in something.  

 

That makes some folks uncomfortable... particularly those who put faith in things other than God.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

That makes some folks uncomfortable... particularly those who put faith in things other than God.

I don't think faith makes anyone uncomfortable.  As you implied, we all place our faith in other things at times.  We've all boarded an airplane or gotten in an Uber and placed our faith in a complete stranger.  Hell, it takes faith just to sit in a chair without knowing where it was manufactured, to what standards, or the experience level of the manufacturing technician. 

 

Faith in god, though, simply does not work for me.  I tried it, spent more than half my life trying it; only to discover there was never anything really there in response to my faith.  If having faith in god works for you, awesome; go have you some faith in god.  I'm not in the least uncomfortable that you've found something that works for you.  I doubt any of us are; but I'll let the rest speak for themselves.  

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

He has already in one of his weak moments.  All he or anyone has to do is look down at their hands and there are infinite "gaps" in our very existence...the infinitely small gaps in our very makeup/identities.  Then we need to ignore the Scripture that suggests similarity as taking advantage of what science can't see.

 

Revelation 21:6

New International Version

6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.

 

To me it's also noteworthy that the Bible equates spirit to water...

 

I've suggested to Rank that there are three positions that a person can take, Ed.

 

1.  Private beliefs, where nobody is answerable to anyone else for what they believe in the privacy of their own minds.

 

2. The middle ground of claims about what might exist, but for which there is currently no evidence.

 

3. The claim that something actually exists, which carries with the onus to make good on that claim with evidence.

 

From the look of it you seem to going with # 2 ?

 

But please correct me if I've got it wrong.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

I haven't made that claim, in bold.

 

That's fine by me, Rank.  

 

You'll have noticed that I didn't actually say that you, RankStranger, had made that claim?

 

Here's what I wrote.

 

We are both engaging in evidence-free speculation about unknowns.

 

Which is fine until one of us goes beyond that and claims that these 4 and 5 dimensional things are real.

 

I did not say that you had gone beyond engaging in evidence-free speculation about unknowns.

 

So, I never actually said you were making a claim.

 

Speculation about something is different from making a claim about it.

 

 

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

Frankly I haven't even claimed that "God Is Real".  I've said that I have faith.  That's not a claim.

 

And I haven't called you that, either.

 

So you're really fighting shadows here, Rank.

 

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

Does faith bother you, Walter?

 

That depends on what you mean by that word, Rank.

[RankStranger]

31 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I don't think faith makes anyone uncomfortable.  As you implied, we all place our faith in other things at times.  We've all boarded an airplane or gotten in an Uber and placed our faith in a complete stranger.  Hell, it takes faith just to sit in a chair without knowing where it was manufactured, to what standards, or the experience level of the manufacturing technician. 

 

Faith in god, though, simply does not work for me.  I tried it, spent more than half my life trying it; only to discover there was never anything really there in response to my faith.  If having faith in god works for you, awesome; go have you some faith in god.  I'm not in the least uncomfortable that you've found something that works for you.  I doubt any of us are; but I'll let the rest speak for themselves.  

 

That's good.  But I fear that we may have nothing to argue about at the moment 

[RankStranger]

16 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I've suggested to Rank that there are three positions that a person can take, Ed.

 

1.  Private beliefs, where nobody is answerable to anyone else for what they believe in the privacy of their own minds.

 

2. The middle ground of claims about what might exist, but for which there is currently no evidence.

 

3. The claim that something actually exists, which carries with the onus to make good on that claim with evidence.

 

From the look of it you seem to going with # 2 ?

 

But please correct me if I've got it wrong.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

I can't speak for Ed.  But I like numbers 1 and 2.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

Ain't nobody getting agitated.  I appreciate you not running to the teacher this time 

 

Have we established yet that our ignorance as humans is not in fact a matter of 'gaps'?  But that we only understand the tiniest sliver of the universe?  With our lack of understanding being not a 'gap'... but damn near a whole universe?

 

As far as I can see the size, scale or volume of space and time involved is irrelevant.

 

The gap is generated by the lack of evidence, data and knowledge.

 

Therefore, that which is supported by these things falls outside of the gap.

 

Whereas, that which isn't falls inside.

 

To me there are just two conditions involved - supported by evidence and not supported by evidence.

 

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

My God of the Universe is fine with any science you want to throw at Him.  Surely you don't think that God is disproven by what we 'know' of biology or cosmology?  Do you?

 

I'm an atheist, not an anti-theist, Rank.

 

An anti-theist believes that god is disproven by what we know of biology, cosmology, etc.

 

But I take the null position of withholding my belief in god until such time I see good evidence for him.

 

This does not mean that I actively disbelieve in him.

 

It simply means that I await evidence that will cause me to believe in him.

 

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

As for false certainty... I've never claimed that I can prove to you or anybody that God is real.  I've only said that I have faith... which you seem to have a problem with.  Why would I even attempt to 'prove' my faith to you?  When faith isn't about 'proof' in the first place?

 

I never said you did.

 

I've been very careful today in what I've said and I've made it clear that I was talking generically about people who make certain claims and not you specifically.

 

I qualified my thoughts with comments in parentheses.  Like this...

 

(not you specifically)

 

I did that twice in my post of three hours ago, ok? 

 

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

So if you're making a claim that 'God isn't real' or the like, that's fine.  Lay out your evidence if you want.  Make your case.  We'll see if I think it's worth my time to respond.

 

No, I'm not making that claim.

 

I'm an atheist, not an anti-theist.

 

[RankStranger]

10 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

That's fine by me, Rank.  

 

You'll have noticed that I  didn't actually say that you, RankStranger, had made that claim?

 

Here's what I wrote.

 

We are both engaging in evidence-free speculation about unknowns.

 

Which is fine until one of us goes beyond that and claims that these 4 and 5 dimensional things are real.

 

I did not say that you had gone beyond engaging in evidence-free speculation about unknowns.

 

So, I never actually said you were making a claim.

 

Speculation about something is different from making a claim about it.

 

 

 

And I haven't called you that, either.

 

So you're really fighting shadows here, Rank.

 

 

 

 

But what do I do with you if we have nothing to argue about?

 

 

 

 

Maybe we can try this:

 

Quote

That depends on what you mean by that word, Rank.

 

From the Bible:

Hebrews 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

(For the purposes of our discussion, I think we can agree that the word "evidence" here is rhetorical.)

 

From Google:

1.  complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2.  strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

So what's wrong with faith?