All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 2, 2008 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:08:03
1196 Green Furry Gods - Agnosticism Debate with Bill Rusch
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, yeah, so this is good.
I think the complexity of the discussion is such that I think we would bring down the internet trying to solve it on a board.
So I think it's good to actually have a conversation about it and see if we can at least come to a better understanding of each other's position.
You know, agreement is not always necessary, but understanding for debates obviously is.
So, yeah.
So, let me try two seconds on how I see your position and then you can tell me where I've gone astray, if that makes sense?
Yeah, that'd be fine.
Okay. Well, I think what I've gotten from the post that you've made is that logic is confined to the material universe and therefore to state with absolute certainty the absolute non-existence of any entity...is to attempt to apply logic which is derived from and applicable to the material universe...
...to everything including that which is not contained or within the material universe...
...and thus is an invalid statement.
And that's why you find a strong atheist position to be less than satisfactory to say the least.
Yeah, I generally agree with that statement, but I would...
...not necessarily I would assume...
I'm not necessarily saying that I believe objective rationality will work on an infinite universe, an infinite material universe either.
Okay, and why would it not work in an infinite material universe?
Well, I mean, part of this came up in the last post I put in.
When you want to talk about an objective rationality argument, you have to know something about what you're talking about.
So, in an infinite universe, No matter how much you know, you really know nothing of the infinite universe.
I'm sorry to interrupt.
I just want to make sure that I understand the point as you make it, and I apologize for the interruption.
It's not because I want to disagree with you, I just want to make sure I understand.
So, if the universe is composed of stable laws of matter and stable properties of matter, but it's infinite in size, it would seem to me that the size would not be material to one's understanding of it, if that makes sense.
Yeah, but I also include time as a component of the universe.
Well, sure, but if the physical properties and laws of the universe are consistent through time, then the length of time, to me, would not be material either.
Yeah, and I would agree with that, but I mean, how much of the universe have you sampled?
Well, but logic is not about sampling, right?
Well, yeah, but empiricism is.
I mean, when we say a ball falls to the ground, we say every time we've dropped a ball, we've seen it fall to the ground.
So you basically say 100% sample rate.
Every time I've done it, it's dropped to the ground.
But, I mean, in an infinite universe, you can't be sure that sometime during, before, in the middle of the Big Bang, maybe gravity didn't exist.
Maybe gravity won't exist a million years from now.
Maybe gravity is actually a large local bubble that we're dealing with, and gravitational forces on the other side of the universe are slightly different than they are here.
There's just no way of knowing with any empirical validity when you get into something of the scope of the universe that your current theories actually hold.
So what you're saying is that no theories are true?
What I'm saying is no theory on an infinite scale is the truth.
Not that it's not the truth, it's just that you cannot propose an objective certainty to it.
You can't prove it's true always, in all places, all times.
Well, sure. Sorry.
I know you say, for UPB, universal is very limited in scope.
It's basically limited to all the people on this planet.
So I split universal there to not mean the same thing when I'm talking about the scope of the universe.
So, sorry, if I understand this correctly, then for a theory to be true, we would have to have absolute and complete omniscience, and we would have to be able to test everything simultaneously for all time, right? In the universal scope, yes.
In a local scope, no.
Right. So, when we are trying to make any statement that is true universally, we cannot ever state that anything is true universally.
Is that right? Yes.
Now, is the statement that we cannot state anything true universally, is that true universally?
Well, that's...
I mean, this is the funny part of it.
It almost...
Part of my...
Part of how I came through this is to the...
The paradoxes exist.
You know what I mean?
It's kind of like saying that just talking about universal scope leads itself to a paradox.
And this, to me, infers that there's a problem in talking about universal concepts.
Well, I think...
Sorry, I think...
I think according to the formulation that you're putting forward, and I know it's not just you who's putting it forward.
I mean, this is a logical problem that's been around since Democritus.
But according to the theory that you put forward, it is simply incomprehensible to talk about universal or absolute truths.
And that does lead to a paradox, because if we cannot talk about universal truths, that is a universal truth, right?
So it automatically contradicts itself.
Well, yeah, but I mean, by that very token, either my theory is correct, and then it makes itself incorrect, which is the paradox, or there is a scope limitation in talking about things universally.
It just kind of shows you, it's kind of like if you're looking through the telescope, and every time you look beyond a certain point, you think it's fuzzy and weird.
Do you assume that there's nothing beyond that point, or do you assume the telescope...
I'm sorry, I'm sorry to interrupt you.
I'm just, I'm losing some of the, you want a cell phone or?
Yeah, I'm on a cell phone.
Do you have a landline?
No, I don't have a landline.
You don't? Okay, well, let me try calling you back on your Skype ID because I want to make sure I'm following what you're saying, but I'm losing some of the text and it's a little confusing, so let me call you back on the Skype.
Okay. Okay.
Still a big bad background hum?
Yeah, don't worry about that. That's no problem.
It's easier. I can do the hum.
I just can't do when I lose what you're saying.
Well, you're actually a lot clearer in my years on this system than you are on the cell phone, so it's better for me.
Oh, yeah. Skype is much better than a phone for sure.
So, okay. So we have this, as you say, the limited scope.
And in the formulation that you approach or that you bring to bear on these questions or any questions...
Where is the limit of the scope of human reason?
Well, I'm not sure that I know the scope for sure.
I just... When you apply logic to these questions, it just starts...
I'm sorry. I'm totally sorry to interrupt you.
You need to move the mic a little farther away because you're getting a lot of plosives, explosion sounds with the mic.
I'm sure this is the last time I'll interrupt you.
I do apologize, but I just want to make sure I have the right volume.
Okay. Is this better? Yes.
Thank you. Sorry. Go ahead. Okay.
I don't know that I've definitely defined the scope limits.
At this point, I'm at the position of thinking that there definitely needs to be scope limits.
Because I've seen when I cross the limit in reasoning, reasoning starts to break down.
Like the paradox that you just brought up, that my argument breaks down, is kind of, to me, indicative of showing that there are limits there.
There's something wrong with trying to apply Objective rationality on an infinite scope.
Well, no, see, it may not, or it may be that the theory is wrong, right?
Because if your theory results in a contradiction, you can say, well, that indicates there's a problem with logic, or it can indicate, which I would consider much more likely, that it's a problem with the theory.
I don't know, because, I mean, in the end, objective rationality is just a tool, right?
It's just a filter that you put information through to come out with the truth on the other side.
It's almost like an equation or a function.
Okay, so let's start off with, to me, because I always get dense around these dense physics topics, so let's start off with something simple.
So what is a statement that you would consider to be objectively true in the empirical and rational scope that you talk about?
Do you mean universally or a local scope?
Let's say local to the universe that we have seen out to a hundred billion light years or whatever it is that we've seen where physical laws appear to remain constant based on our observations.
I think we probably agree with just about everything out there.
Gravity is obviously one of them.
I think objective rationality works perfectly within that scope.
Okay, so within the scope of the known universe, so from here to I don't know how many hundreds of billions of light years in every direction, rationality goes that far, and empiricism goes that far?
Probably even further.
Right, okay. And so your concern is that there may be something outside of this universe where 2 plus 2 equals 5.
I wouldn't say concerned.
It wouldn't bother me.
It doesn't, you know, keep me up at nights.
But from the point of view of accuracy and true statements, I think it's a more accurate statement.
Sorry, it's a more accurate statement to say that 2 plus t, 2 could equal 5.
In an infinite universe...
Well, actually, I'm not sure about that, just because mathematics isn't really...
It kind of defines its own scope.
Defines its own scope. What do you mean?
Well, it's another abstract entity, mathematics.
It doesn't live in the universe per se.
It has its own limitations, its own universe itself.
It's almost a self-contained concept.
To my understanding, mathematics is derived from and directly applicable to material reality.
But perhaps you can tell me what you mean when you talk about the limitations of mathematics?
What do you mean? I don't think mathematics...
I think it lives...
I'm just trying to get the words right for this because I've never actually had to describe this thought before.
Well, but I'm sure you've described it to yourself, right?
Because you, um, uh, when you come onto the, I mean, and I take people at face value, right?
I mean, if you come onto the board, which is great and you, you talk about the limitations of logic and the limitations of rationality and the fact that strong atheists are making illogical and incorrect statements and so on, right?
Then that's, that's a pretty strong assertion, right?
And, and I have no problem with strong assertions.
I mean, I, I make, I probably have less of a problem with strong assertions than you do because of the limitations that you place on logic.
But, you know, when you say stuff like mathematics is a self-contained concept and is limited, I'm, you know, I've never heard that.
I'm certainly fascinated to hear more about it.
Well, I don't mean it's limited in the sense that it's not applicable to the material universe.
I think it's its own, it lives in its own conceptual space.
Sorry, can you explain it to me like I'm three years old?
I don't know what it lives in its own.
I don't mean to, like I'm not being snarky.
I genuinely do not understand what you mean when you say it lives in its own conceptual space.
So two plus two equals four, which is derived from, you know, two oranges and two oranges.
You count them up and there are four.
How is that living in its own conceptual space?
Again, like I'm four years old and a complete idiot, if you could just help me understand that.
Um... I think that is a translation effect.
I mean, I guess you're trying to say that mathematics is a subset of the fundamental universe.
No, no, no, sorry.
If you could just explain to me what you mean by it lives within its own conceptual sphere.
I'm just, because if I don't understand what you mean, there's no point going to what I mean or the next step of the argument.
I just, I have to understand what you mean by when you say stuff like that.
I guess I think it's kind of, it's an abstraction.
It's a conceptual abstraction that has its own internal consistencies that don't necessarily match the internal consistencies of other conceptual spheres.
Such as? Such as the universe.
But you said that mathematics works well within the universe, right?
Yeah, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're joined at the hip.
I'm sorry, I still don't.
So 2 plus 2 equals 4.
How is that a sphere that is disconnected from the universe?
I mean, that's derived from the behavior of matter in the universe, right?
Discrete items that we can count.
I believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4 would be true whether or not the universe existed as we know it at all.
And the fact that two apples and two apples put together were counted to make 4 was used as a validation of the idea that 2 plus 2 equals 4.
They kind of aided in coming up with the rules for each other but they're not necessarily interdependent.
Okay, well tell me how four apples and two plus two equals four is not, like, tell me where the gap is between those two things.
Well, one's in the physical universe and the other's in a conceptual framework or a conceptual scope.
Well, I mean, I certainly, I understand that, but you're saying that these two don't match up, so tell me where the gap is.
I'm not saying that they don't match up.
In that way, I'm saying that they're just different conceptual scopes.
And I don't necessarily think that 2 plus 2 could ever equal 5.
But I also don't think that...
I'm sorry to interrupt, and again, just because I want to make sure I understand.
Earlier you said that it could be the case that saying that 2 plus 2 is 4 is not accurate because in another universe it might equal 5.
But then I stopped and said, let me stop there, because that's not really what I think, and that's why I said I wanted to break mathematics into its own...
Okay, so if 2 plus 2 equals 4 matches perfectly and consistently throughout the universe, where is this gap between...
How mathematics describes the universe and what the universe does?
Because you said that there was a gap where it lives within its own conceptual sphere and doesn't match up.
They're not joined at the hip is the phrase that you use.
So I'm just trying to understand what you mean by that.
Well, I don't believe in mathematics.
You have paradoxes in the same sense.
In the same sense as what?
You don't have the same paradoxes in mathematics as you have in the universe.
And what are the paradoxes in the universe?
Well, you have the creation paradox.
Sorry, what is the creation paradox?
The fact that the universe, an infinite universe going back in time, just doesn't make sense.
What do you mean? I thought that matter can't be created or destroyed.
It can only be transferred from matter to energy and back.
So as far as I understand it, conservation of matter means that...
And this seems to be where physics is.
Somebody posted a video in that thread that the matter has always existed, will always exist.
So I don't think that the conservation of matter and energy is violated by the origins of the universe stuff.
It didn't sort of appear magically out of nothing.
It appears to have always existed.
Yeah, but that in itself is kind of a paradox.
How does something just always exist?
Well, because that is the physical nature of existence, right?
That matter can't be created or destroyed.
It is perpetual. I don't see how that's a paradox.
I mean, there's an observation, right?
That matter always exists.
Or energy. I mean, it kind of steps in the face of See, I don't want to... I mean, one of the arguments that came up in that post was that there was no time before the Big Bang, which would get rid of the whole idea that matter always existed.
Because you can't...
Sorry, go ahead. Just because you couldn't have time...
You can't have matter without time.
It's like water without hydrogen.
The two go hand in hand.
So I'm not really sure...
Without doing more research on that, whether or not they're saying that there was no time, because I actually have heard the very same thing he heard, that they think time really didn't exist before the Big Bang.
Okay, well, let's say that that's true, because again, neither of us are physicists, so what the hell do we know, right?
But let's say that it's true that time did not exist before the Big Bang.
Can you tell me how that's a paradox?
Well, then there's no matter.
Okay, let's say there's no matter.
And then matter comes into existence.
How is that a paradox? I mean, what created the matter?
Well, we don't know, right?
That's a lack of knowledge, but I don't think that that's a paradox, right?
Yeah, but it's that lack of knowledge that opens up all kinds of unknowables.
I mean, as soon as you start saying time didn't exist, there was nothing to create time.
There's nothing to create matter.
It just doesn't seem from this logical universe where cause and effect is generally how everything happens.
You can't have cause and effect without time.
Sure. So how all of a sudden, if there's no time, did time become?
Because there had to be some cause to create the effect of the creation of time, but there was no time to cause the effect.
Sure, but that's not a paradox, that's just a problem, which is that Given that something has to create, you know, something has to happen without time, there's no cause and effect, I agree.
And that means that the thesis that there was no time is probably not correct.
Or if it is correct, then something happened in order for, like, I don't see that that's a paradox.
That's just, that's the edge of our knowledge, right?
About the origin of the universe billions of years ago.
It's just something that remains unsolved, but it will be solved through the consistent application, obviously, of scientific theory and will require internal consistency of theory and consistency with observed material or the effects of matter behavior in the universe.
I don't see how that's a part...
I mean, it's just we don't know yet, right?
But it will be consistent.
It will have to be consistent because that's how the universe is, right?
Well, we just don't know that.
Well, we do know that everything we've observed about the universe is consistent, and there's always stuff at the edge of science which is freaking everyone out, right?
I mean, that's true of superstring theory, that's true of dark matter, that's true when they first figured out black holes.
It's like light cannot escape their surface, it just blew everyone's mind, right?
So there's always stuff at the edge of knowledge that just looks freaky as all get-out.
And the purpose, of course, of science is to try and explain it.
They don't just sit there and say, well, that's some freaky shit, man, right?
And say, well, let's move on, right?
They try to find the consistent rules that...
And I 100% agree with you and what you're saying there.
But like I said, the sample rate is so infinitesimal to the amount of information there is...
I don't think you can make a clear statement about stuff that far before or that far in the future that has any validity.
I mean, you can't say things are still going to be consistent.
You don't know.
You don't know if the reason for the consistency right now just has to do with it being such a tiny slice of the universe.
You mean the universe that we've observed?
Yes. The hundred billion light years across thing?
Yeah. You feel that's a tiny slice?
Compared to infinite it is.
I mean, it's zero. It's zero percent.
Okay, but it is perfectly consistent across a vaster amount of space than could have ever been conceived up to a generation ago, right?
I mean, that much we can say for sure, right?
True, true. And that's why I think that objective rationality is completely applicable within our known universe, with what we can see to the limit of our perceptive ability at this point.
But it's still zero percent of the whole.
It's still nothing.
It's not even a point.
But that's not how logic works.
Empirical observation, I agree, obviously works that way.
But that's not how logic works.
Because you said 2 plus 2 is 4 is consistent throughout the universe.
That's logic, right? Yeah.
So it's zero percent.
But you don't want to mix these two up.
You don't want to mix up the observable with the theoretical principles.
The speed of light appears to be constant throughout the universe.
Two plus two is four.
A triangle has three points.
Whatever you want to say. Those would be basic principles of logic.
And it doesn't matter how big the universe is.
Those would be consistent while we're in it, right?
Because it's consistent across 100 billion light years.
It's consistent throughout time because as far as we can go.
And of course, we can see back in time.
Quite a long ways.
I shouldn't say hundreds of billions of light years because that's too much.
The universe, I think, is only 14 or 16 billion years old.
But we can, of course, look back through time by observing distant galaxies and they behave in predictable and consistent ways.
So I don't think you want to confuse the empiricism, which I agree with you.
You can drop all the rocks and say, well, these rocks fall, and after a while you'll get a pretty consistent sense that rocks fall, but until you've worked out a universal theory of gravity, you cannot with certainty predict that rocks will always fall, all rocks will fall this way according to their size and the wind resistance and so on, right? But you don't want to say, well, empiricism for sure will vanish in the face of infinity, but the logical principles won't, right?
They are perpetual and universal.
Yeah, but when you start talking about God in the infinite scope, you can't even define Him, so how can you come up with a logical rationale whether He exists or not?
Well, sorry, but do we agree that we can use empirical logic universally, at least within the scope of the universe, whereas empiricism does fade to nothing in the face of eternity, or in the face of infinity?
I can't say that for certain, no.
Well, then we can't debate, right?
Because we don't have any principles.
Then it's like two people who, one is a scientist and one is not.
I'm not saying who, it doesn't matter, right?
But we can't debate.
If we don't have any universal laws of logic, then you and I can't debate, right?
Because there's no way of knowing who's right.
What I'm saying is within our local scope, we definitely can.
The local scope being the entirety of the known universe.
Yes. Sure, absolutely.
Okay, so it's universal to within the entirety of the known universe, and there's absolutely no reason to believe that it would change outside of that.
There's no reason to believe whatsoever that it would change.
And, of course, it doesn't matter because we'll never get there.
It's impossible to get there according to relativity, right?
But that's a leading statement.
There's also no reason to believe it wouldn't change.
Yes, there is, because we have 10 billion light-years of consistent information, right?
Which is zero percent of the known empirical universe.
Well, that's assuming the universe is infinite, which we don't know, right?
Yeah, you're right. You could argue that the universe is finite.
But then you run into creation paradoxes.
But what we can say is that 100% of everything we can see appears to be...
Hey, we're on the same page at that scope.
Yes. Okay, fantastic.
And we can't say anything about this other scope.
There's no language that can define it.
There's no logic that could apply to it.
There's no... There's no way to speak.
We might as well speak in tongues, right?
Yes, exactly. That's the point.
Okay, fantastic. Fantastic. That's my whole point, is that we can't speak about it.
Right, so using the word God means nothing.
We might as well use the word flippity-jippity-bang-bang, right?
Well, what we've done with God is kind of, we've put it at the universal scope.
We can talk about the universe.
We can't say anything meaningful about it, but we can talk about it.
Sorry, we can't say anything meaningful about the universe?
What does that mean? It means basically we can refer to this unknowable thing and know that we're talking about the unknowable thing and that's all we would know.
Right, but we can't use the word God for that, right?
Because God has a pretty specific meaning, right?
Well, yeah. I mean, as soon as you start coming into the definitions that are generally thrown out there, as soon as you start nailing God down, then yes.
No, no. The moment you say, sorry to interrupt, the moment you say, I don't mean you, the moment anyone says the word God, they're talking about something pretty specific, right?
They're not talking about a tree.
They're talking about some kind of spirit, some kind of consciousness without material form.
They're talking about some sort of infinity, some sort of omniscience.
It's usually eternal. I mean, it's not a nonsense word.
It is a word that is very specific in its definition, right?
I don't mean that we know exactly what it is.
I would agree with you that most people use that definition.
No, no. That's the definition.
If you look in the dictionary, God doesn't have a question mark.
That is the definition of the word, right?
That it is some sort of consciousness that is eternal, that is omniscient, that usually is virtuous, that has no material form, can't be detected, right?
That is the definition of the word God, right?
That is the dictionary definition, yes.
Is there another definition?
Because that's the way that everyone uses the word, and that's what is in the dictionary.
When I refer to God, I refer to it as the unknown or the unknowable.
But that is an incorrect use of the word.
Well, it depends. No, no, it doesn't depend.
You can't use the word God to mean unknown, because God does not mean unknown.
God means has specific characteristics, right?
Yeah, but now we're getting into semantical arguments.
It's not semantics. Words have definitions.
If you use the word God when you mean unknown, then you are using the incorrect word because God is saying something that is known about omniscience and immateriality and consciousness and so on, right?
What I'm saying about God is it's like the infinite.
I mean, if you use that as a definition...
No, that's not the definition of God.
God is not synonymous with infinite.
But whose definition? The dictionary's definition.
The commonly accepted absolute word that we use.
God has specific characteristics.
It's not unknown.
It's not infinite. It's not outside the universe.
It is consciousness without matter that is eternal and usually omniscient, right?
Well, I don't know.
Let me look. It's better to be exact if we're going to say it's in the dictionary.
Let's just see what it says. I mean, I think it's, you're right, it's going to say something along those lines.
Well, I hope that you have some idea, because you're coming in saying that the atheists are wrong, and I can't accept the argument, and you'd think you'd know what the terms are, right?
Well, no, I mean, my view of God, like I said, God could have some form of consciousness.
It could have all kinds of different things.
But I mean, I could make up God to be anything I want, but I don't then get to say that other people are wrong if I'm making up my own terms, right?
The one supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
To rule the universe, right there, it falls into unknowable.
I mean... No, no, no, no, no.
Come on. Don't do that.
Don't do that. Come on.
It's an anthropomorphic consciousness without matter, right?
To rule the universe is a human concept, right?
Yeah, I mean, definitely rule is certainly human.
It's a human concept.
Um... An image of a deity, an idol, a deified person or object...
Oh, God's theater.
I've never heard that one before.
But there's no synonym there that says unknown, right?
Or infinite? Let me find out.
I've only read half of them. One of several deities...
A supreme being according to some particular conception.
Right. So that's very specific, right?
Well, it says it's a being. A being, right.
So it has characteristics of consciousness.
That's what a being is, right?
It's something that is alive or at least has characteristics of life or consciousness, right?
At the infinite scale, I don't know you can say that.
No, no, no. We're talking about the definition, right, of God.
All it says is a supreme being.
Right. Which is not a synonym for unknown, right?
That just means it is.
It means that it is the most powerful creature in the universe, right?
Yeah, but according to some particular conception.
Right, but that conception is not, you can't just make it up, right?
Well, it doesn't say what the conception is.
Well, sure, but it's the religious conception, right?
I've got here on Meridian Webster, I've got the supreme, the being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness, who is worshipped as a creator and ruler of the universe, the incorporeal divine principle ruling over all as eternal spirit, infinite mind, a person of being of supreme value, a powerful ruler, a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship, one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality.
That definition, I'm an atheist.
Right, but what I'm saying is that that is the definition.
It's not subjective, right?
I mean, when someone says to you, if you're lost, right, and they say to you, do you know where you're going?
You say, no, I don't know, right?
You don't say, God, right?
See, but this is the thing.
I don't necessarily agree with that definition because there's a lot of people out there That have similar arguments to mine and a similar definition of God.
I agree that religious people don't at all, you know, and those are the people that are the real problem.
But for you to say that nobody else out there has that conception...
No, no, no. I didn't say nobody else out there.
I just said it's incorrect, right?
Because the definition of God, which we've now looked at from two sources, is pretty clear, right?
It's not perfectly clear, of course, right?
But it's pretty clear that it's not a synonym.
For infinity and unknown, right?
Now here's the thing, and this is just a general good way to debate kind of thing, if you don't mind me saying so.
If you come into a conversation using a completely wrong definition, right?
And say, well, this is my own definition, right?
I mean, if I go to a physics conference and I say, the theory of relativity is wrong because it incorrectly measures the speed of light.
And then I say, well, it's wrong because the speed of light is two miles an hour.
Well, I've just got the definition of the speed of light wrong.
I don't get to say that Einstein's theory is wrong, right?
And so if you come into an atheist group and you say, atheism is wrong, and then you use your own personal definition of what a god is, And don't tell anyone, right?
And don't ask the atheists what their definition of the word God is.
It's pointless, right?
No, but I don't think you can say I never put my definition of what God is when I was making these statements.
Oh, okay. Perhaps you can point me to the post where you did that?
Okay. I guess the easiest way is to go to my post.
Sure.
And, sorry, come on.
Okay.
I know for sure, just while you're looking, excuse me, I know for sure that you did not put forward a definition of God that was contradictory because you disagreed or disliked my example of the square circle, right?
Well, I mean, I think that's kind of a different debate, actually, the square circle one.
It isn't to me, but again, since we're having trouble with definitions, let's wait and see what definition you put forward.
Well, in the first or the previous post, I didn't actually define it explicitly, but the objective rationality of local methodology was I said God and his existence or non-existence works at the scope of the universe and larger.
Well, you said God and his existence, which is obviously you weren't using the word God there.
I said it. Oh, sorry.
I'm so sorry. That was just a bad Skype.
I do apologize. Go on. I might have said his, but I actually wrote its.
God and its existence or non-existence works at the scope of the universe or larger.
Ah, so sorry, but the same principle applies.
If you say its existence, then you're talking about an entity, not a concept or a principle like infinity or unknown, right?
You're talking about the existence of an entity, right?
Yeah, an infinite entity, though.
Well, yeah, but you're talking about...
But here you were saying God is a synonym for unknown or infinity, right?
But infinity is not an entity.
Well, I mean, basically I'm saying that God is an infinite entity.
Right, okay, so it's a thing that can be proven or disproven, right?
It exists or it doesn't, like an asteroid or like a black hole or something like that, right?
Well, I mean, after I say that, I go on to say that it's not really useful to use objective rationality to talk about infinite things.
I mean, that's the whole point.
So you're going with a pretty standard definition of God, right?
I'm just going as an entity that lives at the scope of the universe or larger.
Right, okay. So you're using a very standard definition of the word God, right?
Because most people believe that God is bigger than the universe, right?
And infinite and eternal and blah blah blah, right?
And exists as a thing, right?
Yeah, I don't know what they really think because...
This is what you think, at least in terms of the definition that you were using, right?
Yeah, it's an infinite being.
Right, okay. So it's not, as you said earlier, you were saying, well, it's the unknown or it's infinity as a concept, right?
But it's an infinite being, which is very different from infinity as a concept, right?
The same way that a green ball is different from green as a concept, right?
Yeah, but the whole point of saying it's an infinite being is that OR, or objective rationality, does not work on infinite beings.
But you can't use the word God if you mean unknown.
That's what I'm trying to say to you.
The word God has specific meanings, but what we earlier established is that we cannot put any specific meanings into the unknown that is outside the universe, right?
All we can say is flippity gibbity bang bang, right?
Or whatever, right? Because there's no language, there's no concepts, there's no human thinking, there's no logic that can describe this sea of static that may exist outside the universe.
But when you start to say, I'm going to talk about something which has characteristics, it's an object, it's infinite, it's a being, then you're ascribing characteristics, you're trying to make a picture out of static, right?
Right? And that's where you come prey, in a sense, to an atheist examination, right?
If you say, there's stuff outside the universe that there is no language to encompass, right?
It's like, maybe, maybe there isn't.
We can't talk about it, right?
But the moment you start using the word God, you are ascribing characteristics to static, and then you're making a mistake, even by your own philosophy, right?
Because you can't ascribe any characteristics.
To anything that is outside the universe or outside of language or outside of logic, right?
Yeah, but that's my point.
No, but you're using the word God when you should be saying, who knows, or it can't be talked about, or it has no characteristics, or it's beyond logic.
It's X, right?
Well, I'm saying that God is the unknowable and it is all those things.
You realize that we're going in complete circles here, right?
Yeah, I do. I do, but I just, I mean, I think that my point of view is that you have this whole null zone of non-knowledge.
Things that are unknowable, things that you can't say definitely about.
Anytime you take God and turn it from the big God into the lowercase God where you're ascribing Definite principles or definite things where you can say, I know this about God, then you're absolutely correct.
But you did that in your post.
All I said was it was infinite.
You said it exists.
It's existence, right?
But you can't talk about that.
You can't talk about existence or non-existence or infinity or non-infinity or anything like that because there's no language that can conceivably encompass what is outside the universe, if anything indeed is, right?
Yeah, but that's the whole agnostic principle, is that you can't talk about something you know nothing about.
Right, in which case you should not use the word God, because God has specific characteristics that you claim that you know something about, that it's an entity, that it's eternal, that it exists or does not exist or may or may not exist, right?
Well, it says it's existence or non-existence.
Yeah, I don't ascribe it having existence or not.
I'm saying if it does exist, there's no way we can know about it or not.
Right. It's irrational to talk about it.
Right. Right. Absolutely.
So there's no point talking about God at all when it comes to outside the universe, right?
Only from the scope of acknowledging the conceptual concept of the unknowable.
Right. So we say there may be something outside the universe which we cannot speak to at all, right?
Right. Yeah, and that's what I think the agnostic argument is.
How is that different from the atheist argument that God does not exist in the universe?
In the universe, it's no different.
But we can't speak of outside the universe.
There's no language that can encompass it either.
See, and there's two possibilities.
Let me just finish my point.
There's two possibilities of things that are outside the universe, right?
The first possibility is that They will forever remain outside the universe, and we will never ever know whether they exist.
And then it's a complete fantasy realm.
It makes no difference whatsoever.
Or we will find some way of empirically measuring and penetrating or wormholing in or something into that, in which case we will discover the laws and properties of that other universe, right?
Okay, I think we've nailed down our definitions at this point.
Sorry, can we just deal with that point?
And then we can move on to what you want to move on to.
But those are the two possibilities, right?
No, I 100% agree with you on those two points.
Okay, so if we never figure out anything about this other universe, then it remains a theoretical bit of nonsense, right?
It's fluffery, right? Because then we have a standard which says everything could be conceivably false in a way that we could never comprehend and we will never discover.
I mean, that's not a principle that anyone can do anything useful with, right?
And there's no way of proving it's just nonsense, right?
Yeah, I would agree that it's not generally useful.
It's not even non-useful.
Again, you might as well just start speaking in tongues.
Or we're going to find some way of measuring and penetrating this other universe, discovering its properties and learning something about it and whatever, right?
In which case, we will have brought that into this universe, right?
At least those measurements will be brought into this universe, right?
We're not in disagreement there, yes.
Oh, fantastic. Okay, great.
My issue is with the definition of agnosticism, I guess, versus atheism.
I think atheism ignores the unknowable.
It kind of says there is no unknowable and there can't ever be an unknowable.
I'm sorry, can you point that out, where that was said, at least on my forum or in my podcast?
Because I think I just said we don't know about the beginning of the universe.
It's a mystery. There's a constant mystery at the edge of knowledge.
I'm just trying to understand where you get that perspective from.
Because atheism claims certainty.
Atheism claims that square circles cannot exist, just like every mathematician and every scientist claims.
I think square circles don't exist as a logical claim, not an atheist claim.
Sure, atheism is a subset of logic, right?
There's lots of things you can do with logic.
One is to say that square circles does not exist, and the other is to say that the god as defined in dictionaries cannot exist, at least in the universe.
Who knows what static is outside, but we're just talking about the things which we can know, right?
Well, yeah, but my point is that I think atheism comes across as trying to encompass the unknowable and the knowable at the same time.
Sorry, I have no idea what that means.
I think it's too blanket.
It's kind of like saying, when you say to somebody, there absolutely is no such thing as God, Right there you've challenged their imagination and it's perfectly viable to use your imagination to think about something that's unknowable on a conceptual level.
And to say that you can know something about the unknowable I think is It's not entirely accurate.
I think there's an implication there.
Come on, we can't keep going over the same ground here.
We said earlier when we looked at these damn dictionary definitions that when you say the word God, you are saying something specific about something.
It is not a synonym for the unknown.
You are saying being, infinity, existence, life, consciousness, ruler, creator, right?
Yeah, basically we're saying we can't talk about it.
No, but it's the religious people who talk about it.
Yeah, but I think atheism kind of says that you can talk about it.
No! Atheism says that it is a self-contradictory concept, therefore cannot exist.
Now, it is the religious people...
Well, that's therefore cannot exist.
You can't make that statement.
We just said square circles can't exist.
But it's an unknowable thing.
It's not a square circle.
Sure it is. An infinite being is unknowable.
No, an infinite being is a self-contradictory entity.
An infinite living being, a being that has consciousness with neither matter nor energy, who is neither created or dies, who is omniscient and all-powerful, which of course are completely self-contradictory concepts.
I would never use the omniscient and all-powerful in the same context.
All I would say is it is a thing that exists.
Okay, but then just say, you know, there are things that may exist that we don't know yet.
But the moment somebody says the word God, then they're saying something specific about something, right?
In the same way where someone says square circle, they're saying something specific about something.
Like if I say there's stuff out there we haven't discovered yet, well of course that's true.
I mean that's gonna probably continue to be true for the rest of human history.
But if I say square circles exist, then I'm saying something that is very specific has an existence.
And when I say God may exist, Then I'm saying something specific.
God is not a synonym for X. God is not a synonym for something or the unknown.
God, as we saw in the dictionary definitions, is a very specific thing.
And we can't make the statement about any specific thing with reference to that which we don't know or cannot know, right?
I still don't see how you can say that a particular conception...
Some particular conception.
Yeah, I can't say X doesn't exist, but a green X does.
Because the moment I use the word green, I'm saying it has a characteristic, right?
I can't say X equals unknown and it's also green, right?
Because if I say green, then it's not unknown anymore.
At least it's not completely unknown, right?
So you can't substitute the word God for the unknown because God is saying it's unknown, we know nothing about it whatsoever, and it's green and furry.
Because the moment you say it's green and furry, you're saying I know something about it, right?
Yeah, but you can't say it doesn't exist either.
No, no, no. You've got to hear me.
Hear what I'm saying. If someone says that something that is completely unknown is green and furry, I have the right to say you either have to prove that it's green and furry or you have to withdraw those characteristics, right?
True, but...
That's all that atheism I talk about says.
If someone says God exists and they're saying that there are some definable characteristics that they know about something, in which case it's like, okay, if you're going to say it's green and furry, then you better show me that it exists.
And if you can't, then you have to draw green and furry.
And withdrawing green and furry means you can't talk about God.
Quick question. Is saying that God created the universe a characteristic?
How? What is it a characteristic of?
It's an action. Well, because creation is a human concept, right?
If you're saying God created the universe, you're saying some being acted in a way to will the creation of the existence of the universe.
In other words, you're saying some being has consciousness, power, will, omnipotence.
Suddenly you're ascribing green and furry to that which is formally or logically considered X. The moment someone starts describing the characteristics of the unknown, they either have to prove those characteristics or withdraw The proposition that they know something about the unknown, right? So that's why the word God doesn't work in this context.
But I would disagree when you're talking about infinite concepts.
I think you can say that an infinite concept, you can talk about an infinite concept and realize that you can't say anything more than it on a conceptual level.
Right. Then you can't use the word God because the God is saying something specific about it, right?
But I mean, to say that God created the universe, I mean, you're not...
I don't see how logic can deny that or support it in any way.
Because you're ascribing characteristics to an entity.
We just went through this.
Did you hear it or not? No, but I'm saying that there's a scope limitation on things you can apply to the infinite.
If you say God created the universe, I'll go through it again, and after this I won't bother because I don't know if you're listening or not.
If you say God created the universe, you're saying some entity had will, had the capacity to create, is probably omniscient, exists outside of time, willed something into existence.
You are making statements that are essentially, it's completely unknown and it's greed and furry.
Well, it can't be both, right?
And so you can't say God created the universe because then you're ascribing characteristics to a complete X. In which case, you have to prove those characteristics or you have to withdraw the characteristics and say, I don't know.
Right? Which is the intellectually honest thing to say, right?
Well, that's the whole thing.
I'm saying, I don't know.
Right. So then you can't talk about God.
Because the moment you talk about God, you're claiming knowledge.
But no, but the atheist scope is saying, I know.
Right. The agnostic scope is saying, I don't know.
No. Well, okay, fine, but then the agnostic can't use the word God, because the moment the agnostic uses the word God, they're bringing specific characteristics into the forefront, and then they either have to prove the existence of those characteristics or withdraw the claim, right?
But you just said all you can say is, I don't know, and that's all agnostics say.
Right. You said the only thing you can say is, I don't know.
About the creation of the universe.
About the creation of the universe.
And the existence of God.
No, because the moment, okay, I'm not going to keep going around because you're not listening.
I mean, it may take 16 different ways and you're just steadfastly refusing to see, and that's fine.
You're obviously heavily invested, as I am, in our perspective.
So maybe you can listen to this as a podcast and see if it makes any more sense.
So maybe I will re-listen to it too, of course, and see if it makes any more sense to me.
Can we not talk about God for a second?
Well, no, because if we've spent an hour not getting anywhere when we're talking about these particular ideas, I'm not sure where else there would be to go, right?
That's a little defeatist.
No, it's not defeatist.
this is just a recognition that I don't like to spin my wheels to no avail, right?
Like, you're obviously a very smart fellow, and you're very well-read, and you're very intelligent, and your language skills are fantastic, and you're a good debater.
But you're not listening to what I'm saying, right?
I mean, because I keep making the same points, you agree with them, and then you cut them like two minutes later, so it's sort of pointless.
I don't have respect for what it is that you're doing here intellectually, is the problem.
Yeah, but I didn't, I mean, I don't think you heard yourself saying what you said.
I mean, you said all you can say is, I don't know.
About specific characteristics of a being who created the universe, it is intellectually completely dishonest to say that we know anything about how the universe was created even once.
But that's all agnosticism is saying.
No, you said, God created the universe, or that could be a statement that had comprehensibility, and I just said that it could.
can't make those statements.
That's Anyway, look, I mean, we're clearly not going to get any further.
And I really have enjoyed the debate.
I mean, to me, it's been very enjoyable, and it's a good workout, right?
But no, I don't feel any particular desire at the moment to go further in this question.
I think that you came into an atheist forum assuming a lot of things about atheism.
I think you put forward the word God, which claims specific knowledge, and then claimed it was synonymous with the unknown, which to me is kind of sleazy, if you don't mind me saying so.
And I don't think it's because you're a bad guy.
I just think that maybe you've never been challenged in this way before.
I don't think it's sleazy at all because I didn't come in here with...
Sleazy has connotations.
That I was trying to pull one over on you.
No, I'm not saying it.
That's why I said it. I don't think it's conscious.
I just don't think that you've ever been challenged in the definitions in this way before.
So the test is when you are challenged in the definitions and you're obviously intelligent enough to understand that you can't describe characteristics to that which you claim is unknown and that's really the atheist position.
You're completely intelligent enough to understand that.
So, and of course, nobody changes their minds about something so fundamental in an hour, right?
That's why going on is sort of pointless, because we need to sit and sort of mull over what we've talked about.
The only thing I wanted to ask you is whether or not you agree with scope limitation at all on objective reality or objective rationality.
Well, to me, it doesn't mean anything.
Because if you're saying there's something outside of reality that could exist, but which we will never be able to talk about in any way, shape, or form, then it's like, okay, maybe, right?
But, you know, to me, it's like saying, well, maybe we're all doubling size, and all our measurements are doubling size.
Well, we'll never be able to know.
So I don't know what scope limitation means.
If there could be conceivably something outside the universe that we will never be able to comprehend or prove or examine or travel to or ever get any sense of whatsoever, then I don't see that as a scope limitation.
But you also believe that anybody who has a definition Like mine, which I moved in there kind of sleazily, or unsubconsciously, these people are all, what are they? Are they just crazy?
Wrong? What's their deal?
You mean, why do I... I mean, I don't feel like I'm alone in this conceptual idea of the definition of God, in which case I think Gnosticism applies.
Oh, listen, Bill, you are in the vast majority.
I mean, trust me, you are in the vast majority.
You are in the overwhelming majority.
But all we're talking about then is definitions.
I mean, if you change your definition, you would become agnostic too.
You just don't want to change your definition.
No, I certainly don't think that follows from what I've been saying.
What's your question, why do I think you did what you did?
Well... Yeah, I mean...
You don't want to take on religious people, that's why, because you want to sit on the fence.
Oh no, not at all. That's not true at all.
I take on religious people all the time.
I think religion is crazy and bullshit, just because I apply this concept as a...
You give them an out.
Look, you give them an out, because you give them this other universe thing where their God might exist.
Well, yeah, but to me this seems kind of like it's your Moby Dick.
I mean, don't give them an out.
Never give an inch.
It doesn't give them a thing.
It just doesn't give them anything.
Sure it does. Absolutely it does.
Bill, it does, because what you're doing is you're saying there's a place outside the universe where your god might exist.
Not their god, no.
Sure. Because it's outside the universe.
They can make up whatever they want, right?
Well, no. No laws apply, right?
Yeah, but it doesn't apply to reality in any way.
But they don't believe that they're connected through a spirit world.
They don't care about reality.
They believe that they pray and get messages from beyond this reality.
And you're enabling that by saying this other reality could be out there and logic is limited, which opens up the door to faith and all the horrors that go with it.
See, but that's why I say this is kind of like your Moby Dick.
You don't want to give that possibility so much that you just define that possibility away.
Okay, well, if you think it's just semantics, that's fine.
But I think that I've made a pretty good case as to why you can't say anything about God and other dimensions that has any relevance to anything that is truth statement, that it's simply static noise that we may never encounter.
And we totally agree there, but I think that I think the I do not know answer is more intellectually sound.
Absolutely. But religious people all say that they know.
And when you introduced the word God, you were also claiming knowledge about something.
Because God has, as we talked about with Miriam Webster, a specific definition.
Well, my point would be, I would say, hey, I don't know anything about an infinite, unknowable being, but the God you're talking about, I absolutely know does not exist.
Well, how do you know? He could exist in this other universe.
You made a statement on the board that dropped my jaw.
You said, there's no possible way that the Christian God exists.
Well, yeah. How do you know?
Not scope limits, right?
Yeah, but...
You can't know.
Because in this other universe, he might be a bearded hippie who kills himself and comes back to life.
You're right, I don't know he exists.
I know that it's completely irrelevant if he does.
No, no, you said he doesn't exist in the thread.
Which blew my mind.
But it's completely irrelevant.
That's really where I'm coming from as a point.
Do you see the contradiction here?
You said, this Christian God cannot exist.
Well, yeah, but the Christian God cannot, because he basically has built-in contradictions.
Do you see the problem? No, but do you see the problem here?
But he has contradictions from the real world.
But you're making a statement that a God does not exist.
No, but he has contradictions in the real world.
He doesn't have contradiction...
Who cares about contradictions in the unknowable world?
He has actual real-world contradictions, and that's why he cannot exist.
And that's why I'm saying any concept, any attribute that you ascribe to a complete unknowable...
It's a contradiction in terms.
Because if it's completely unknowable, you can't say anything about it.
And the moment you use the word God, you're ascribing attributes to a complete unknown, which is a complete contradiction.
So no God can exist.
The very concept of God is ascribing an attribute to an unknown, which is logically impossible.
And so no God can exist just as certainly as no Christian or Buddhist or, you know, Incan God can exist.
See, I think you can ascribe characteristics to them, it just isn't meaningful.
But that's, I mean, you're just dancing with semantics here.
If you can say the Christian God can't exist, and I say God as an entity of which the Christian God as a subset can't exist, then you're basically saying, well, little fairies can't exist, but big fairies could, right?
Well, the same principle applies, right?
Yeah, in general. I wouldn't say they exist.
I would say I don't know.
No, no, you said, God, do you want me to read it back to you?
Do you want me to read back what you typed?
I said the Christian God does not exist.
And other forms of anthropomorphic gods.
Let me look it up so that I can just finish off this.
But just to clarify what I meant by that, I meant a God that has contradictions in the real world obviously cannot exist.
Well, let me just read what you wrote, because we can only go with what you wrote, right?
Well, okay. I mean, even if what I wrote was wrong there, I will give you every point on that.
Well, but the challenge is that if you're careless about what you're talking about, then people aren't going to want to debate with you, right?
Well, I mean, everybody's careless some of the time, so.
Well, but we've got more than a few here, right?
I still think it comes down to I don't know.
But you've plain knowledge here.
That's what I'm saying, and I'll dig it up.
About the Christian God, yes.
Because the Christian God definitely has real-world contradictions.
Yeah, but we're talking about the other, right?
We're talking about this other universe, right?
So you can't say the Christian God does not exist.
Yeah, but we're talking about our real world.
When you're talking about his effect, or their thinking of his interaction in the real world...
Oh yes, here we go. This is what you wrote.
You wrote this today, I guess this evening, at 7.28pm.
You said, It is quite easy to show that the Christian God and all the deities proclaimed by all the other religions is completely and utterly false without uttering unprovable absolutes.
Yes. I still believe that.
Because they're self-contradictory in the real world.
You don't have to talk about the infinite world to even shoot them down.
Well, but you're saying all the other deities proclaimed by all the other religions, you know, that's 10,000 deities.
Are you sure that there's not one of those 10,000 deities, because you're all about empiricism, right?
There's not one of those 10,000 deities that might not conform to your definition.
I will write a retraction and I will say, on all the deities I have ever heard of, Is that alright?
I don't know how well you've studied religion, but if you want to go out on a limb, that's fine with me.
It's ridiculous to say that all man-made conceptions of God don't exist.
But my man-made conception of God might exist.
Because you've just got another definition of God, right?
But why is everyone else's definition of God completely and utterly false?
But your definition might exist.
So six billion people are wrong, and you're possibly right.
That's so arrogant!
Do you see that? My definition doesn't have any real-world implications, other than the conceptual choice between atheism and agnosticism.
But do you understand?
Six billion people have a definition of God that you're saying is completely and utterly false, but your definition of God might exist.
And a lot of other people.
I mean, what I would call the rational agnostics, which I would put myself in that group as, I think they have the same definition.
But you understand, to an atheist, at least to me, it is jaw-droppingly arrogant.
To say 5.9 billion people are completely wrong and deluded about their God does not, cannot, conceivably exist in this or any other universe, but my conception of God might.
Of course, everybody who's religious thinks that.
Everybody thinks everybody else's religion is crap, but their conception of God has potential.
I mean, that's common, right?
That's the name of religion.
I use very clear terms on why I think that.
Yeah, but everybody thinks that who's religious.
Everybody thinks that everybody else's god is not.
They're not using objective rational arguments.
I'm actually using objective rational arguments.
No, you're not. You're saying that rationality has a scope and outside of rationality, right?
So you're not using rational arguments.
You're abandoning rational arguments at the edge of the universe and saying there might be gods out here.
Yeah, but you have too.
You've just said they're unknowable.
In which case, you can't use the word gods.
Again, look, if you're not going to get that, I'm not going to repeat it.
But anyway, listen, I'm going to stop here, but I did want to thank you for a most rousing and enjoyable debate, and I do appreciate you taking the time to give it a shot.
Okay. No hard feelings or anything.
I do respect the work you've done here.
I just disagree on this one point.
All right. Well, thank you very much, and I will talk to you soon.
▲
Export Selection