George - 12 April 2012 07:39 PM

VeridicusMaximus - 12 April 2012 05:55 PM

I am between 5 and 6 on a Cosmic Intelligence that is part and parcel of the undelying reality of the Universe.

You seem to know a lot about something you claim you don’t know a lot about. Why is it “cosmic”? Why not merely “galactic”? How do you know it’s intelligent? What portion of the “underlying reality” does this “part and parcel” account for?

You are not a 5. And you are certainly not a 6. If you quack like a 3, then you are probably a 3. 

The first part was somewhat tongue in cheek. That is why I waxed eloquent on something I have no way of knowing.

asanta - 12 April 2012 08:24 PM

VeridicusMaximus - 12 April 2012 05:55 PM

I am between 5 and 6 on a Cosmic Intelligence that is part and parcel of the undelying reality of the Universe. Whooosh! The very fact that I do know how to know that might bring me to somewhere between 6 and 7.

I am between a 6 and 7 on any revealed Religion God simply because I am one humble dude.

Are you a Poe?

Hell Noe! What is a Poe - if it is person of entertainment - then ye that is me

I’m None of the Above.  The Poll itself is meaningless since no one can define what exactly the poll is about.  Now it uses alot of words we’ve all heard of, uses them in sentences that seem to make sense. But ultimately, no one can say whether they make sense or not.  Sort of like this question: “Do you believe blue smells like flotsom?”

CuthbertJ - 25 April 2012 06:48 PM

I’m None of the Above.  The Poll itself is meaningless since no one can define what exactly the poll is about.  Now it uses alot of words we’ve all heard of, uses them in sentences that seem to make sense. But ultimately, no one can say whether they make sense or not.  Sort of like this question: “Do you believe blue smells like flotsom?”

  I don’t follow you; we can define what the poll is about - it’s about rating yourself according to Dawkins’ scale.  It’s not very precise, but it’s close enough to give a workable description.

CuthbertJ - 25 April 2012 06:48 PM

I’m None of the Above.  The Poll itself is meaningless since no one can define what exactly the poll is about.  Now it uses alot of words we’ve all heard of, uses them in sentences that seem to make sense. But ultimately, no one can say whether they make sense or not.  Sort of like this question: “Do you believe blue smells like flotsom?”

What do you mean? God has a very simple definition: the all powerful, all knowing, perfectly good person who created and/or sustains the universe.

“All powerful” means he can do anything it is logically possible to do. (E.g., he can’t make a weight so heavy he can’t lift it, since that would imply a contradiction, and hence not be logically possible).

“All knowing” means he knows everything it is logically possible to know. (E.g., for every proposition he knows the extent to which it is true or false).

“Perfectly good” means that he only ever wills what is the best in any given circumstance.

“Person” means he is a being with beliefs, desires, intentions, will, etc.

There is no real confusion here about what is being described.

mid atlantic - 25 April 2012 08:14 PM

CuthbertJ - 25 April 2012 06:48 PM

I’m None of the Above.  The Poll itself is meaningless since no one can define what exactly the poll is about.  Now it uses alot of words we’ve all heard of, uses them in sentences that seem to make sense. But ultimately, no one can say whether they make sense or not.  Sort of like this question: “Do you believe blue smells like flotsom?”

  I don’t follow you; we can define what the poll is about - it’s about rating yourself according to Dawkins’ scale.  It’s not very precise, but it’s close enough to give a workable description.

Poor choice of words on my part. By “about” I meant what the various words in the poll mean, not what the polls purpose is (or Dawkins scale).  I guess if you say the poll refers to a particular Western, Judeo-Christian set of definitions, then I’d say it has some meaning but it’s trivial and silly.  That’s because those definitions are just simplistic, anthropomorphic descriptions of a story character that has evolved over time.

I see nothing silly about the poll. What I do find silly, though, is everything you have written so far, Cuthbert. You are making absolutely no sense.

What do you mean? God has a very simple definition: the all powerful, all knowing, perfectly good person who created and/or sustains the universe.
You’ve described a super duper Santa Claus. Who’s to say any of those apply to “god”?

“All powerful” means he can do anything it is logically possible to do. (E.g., he can’t make a weight so heavy he can’t lift it, since that would imply a contradiction, and hence not be logically possible).
That’s not all powerful then is it, since she’s limited by logic.

“All knowing” means he knows everything it is logically possible to know. (E.g., for every proposition he knows the extent to which it is true or false).
Same as above, plus what’s so special about “knowing”? That’s something us humans do.  “Knowing” implies the possibility of not knowing so in a sense maybe the whole idea doesn’t apply to a god.

“Perfectly good” means that he only ever wills what is the best in any given circumstance.
Wills what is best? You mean she can’t choose to do less than best? That’s not all powerful.

“Person” means he is a being with beliefs, desires, intentions, will, etc
More anthropomorphism.

I don’t mean to knock what you posted, because you did tick off some obvious things that many others have in the past.  It’s just that these things really just express simple ideas from us puny humans (myself included).  Even my little objections could be considered silly by someone far more advanced than any of us.  Point is, the poll only makes sense if we don’t delve too deeply into what’s meant by the words in it.  Even the word “exist” is suspect. Perhaps there are things that occur, then vanish, then occur, then vanish, etc.

CuthbertJ - 26 April 2012 01:55 PM

What do you mean? God has a very simple definition: the all powerful, all knowing, perfectly good person who created and/or sustains the universe.
You’ve described a super duper Santa Claus. Who’s to say any of those apply to “god”?

Huh? They do, by definition. That’s what God means.

CuthbertJ - 26 April 2012 01:55 PM

“All powerful” means he can do anything it is logically possible to do. (E.g., he can’t make a weight so heavy he can’t lift it, since that would imply a contradiction, and hence not be logically possible).
That’s not all powerful then is it, since she’s limited by logic.

Um, no. Logic is no limitation, since it includes everything that is possible. Contradiction is not possible.

CuthbertJ - 26 April 2012 01:55 PM

“All knowing” means he knows everything it is logically possible to know. (E.g., for every proposition he knows the extent to which it is true or false).
Same as above, plus what’s so special about “knowing”? That’s something us humans do.  “Knowing” implies the possibility of not knowing so in a sense maybe the whole idea doesn’t apply to a god.

Same as above. “Knowing” is having correct information about the way things are. There is nothing essentially human in any of that. Indeed, machines can have true information in this sense, and many animals can know.

I don’t understand your last sentence, but anyhow it is misplaced since as I’ve said this idea applies to God by definition.

CuthbertJ - 26 April 2012 01:55 PM

“Perfectly good” means that he only ever wills what is the best in any given circumstance.
Wills what is best? You mean she can’t choose to do less than best? That’s not all powerful.

She has the power to do what’s less than best but her will to the good makes her choose the best, anyway. I suppose in a sense that’s a limitation on being all powerful, but if so, it’s a limitation that wouldn’t make a difference to many theists.

CuthbertJ - 26 April 2012 01:55 PM

“Person” means he is a being with beliefs, desires, intentions, will, etc
More anthropomorphism.

Huh? Is that supposed to be a knock-down argument of some kind? If there are intelligent aliens out there somewhere, they will be persons just as much as you are.

CuthbertJ - 26 April 2012 01:55 PM

Point is, the poll only makes sense if we don’t delve too deeply into what’s meant by the words in it.  Even the word “exist” is suspect. Perhaps there are things that occur, then vanish, then occur, then vanish, etc.

Uh huh. That’s the sort of objection which, if valid, would be applicable to every sentence ever spoken or written, including itself. It is, so to say, self-refuting.

George - 26 April 2012 01:52 PM

I see nothing silly about the poll. What I do find silly, though, is everything you have written so far, Cuthbert. You are making absolutely no sense.

  Dig into a good book on Philosophy.  Much of what I’m talking about is just philosophical questioning and analysis.  I’m certainly no pro at it believe me. And the stuff I wrote elsewhere in this thread really isn’t original thinking. I’m just rehashing what others have said.  Anyways, if you spend any amount of time really delving into the big ideas in philosophy you quickly realize nothing’s as simple as it seems. And a poll or scale like Dawkins is one of those things.

dougsmith - 26 April 2012 02:07 PM

CuthbertJ - 26 April 2012 01:55 PM

What do you mean? God has a very simple definition: the all powerful, all knowing, perfectly good person who created and/or sustains the universe.
You’ve described a super duper Santa Claus. Who’s to say any of those apply to “god”?

.....

CuthbertJ - 26 April 2012 01:55 PM

Point is, the poll only makes sense if we don’t delve too deeply into what’s meant by the words in it.  Even the word “exist” is suspect. Perhaps there are things that occur, then vanish, then occur, then vanish, etc.

Uh huh. That’s the sort of objection which, if valid, would be applicable to every sentence ever spoken or written, including itself. It is, so to say, self-refuting.

Ok, sorry.  I can see my posts really don’t belong in this type of forum.  I’m gonna stick to the less philosophical topics in the CFI Forum.

CuthbertJ - 25 April 2012 06:48 PM

I’m None of the Above.  The Poll itself is meaningless since no one can define what exactly the poll is about.  Now it uses alot of words we’ve all heard of, uses them in sentences that seem to make sense. But ultimately, no one can say whether they make sense or not.  Sort of like this question: “Do you believe blue smells like flotsom?”

It’s one thing to say that a poll or survey is more complicated than it looks, and another thing to wax hyperbolic and say that it’s “meaningless”

Just because things aren’t defined EXACTLY doesn’t make them meaningless—

Are you more of an atheist or a religious fundamentalist?

I’m a 6 on the scale.  I’m not quite certain enough to put myself at 7.  I’d say I’m 100% sure YHWH doesn’t exist but I’m only 99%  certain a deistic god doesn’t exist.

CuthbertJ - 26 April 2012 02:16 PM

Ok, sorry.  I can see my posts really don’t belong in this type of forum.  I’m gonna stick to the less philosophical topics in the CFI Forum.

No worries!

dougsmith - 26 April 2012 04:12 PM

CuthbertJ - 26 April 2012 02:16 PM

Ok, sorry.  I can see my posts really don’t belong in this type of forum.  I’m gonna stick to the less philosophical topics in the CFI Forum.

No worries!

There’s always the envelope problem and free will. Have at it!