I have a counterexample: I can define a string of characters (from some finite set, like {0,1}) as random and incompressible, and of some length, n. The description of such a string is necessarily at least as long as the string, or longer. Which is to say, the complexity of the description is greater than the definition. Now what?
Good one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That would be an exhaustive description.
So what's inexhaustive, if you will, about the definition in my counterexample? It defines the string sufficiently, but not exactly since there must be many incompressible strings of length n? Without a description the string can then be any incompressible string of that length? If I leave out the set of characters and define the object as any incompressible string of length n (or say, greater than n), does the complexity change?
But it isn't. The definition is general (it covers all examples), the description is exact and specific (for exactly one of the examples). Look, you said earlier that we don't define what an elephant is, we describe it. So if I say there's a mammal with large ears, a prehensile snout, and tusks, is that a description? What if I say there's a genome with a set of genes that defines an elephant? Do I actually mean it's a description of one, or do I need to describe the entire DNA code of an elephant including the parts that don't encode genes?
I didn't say a description can't be specific. A description can be as exhaustive as its definition. No I didn't. Check.
What define or describe are supposed to mean I think depends on the context. Mathematics likes to have precise meanings for any terminology, although the two words are often used synonymously. In computational science, not so much.
God Is unknowable, via the ways Birch was suggesting. You're claiming that God is utterly unknowable. What is that based on? I believe in God. That's what seems to elude you. You are unable to comprehend what it means, or how it works. You simply Base your analysis on systems you can comprehend, which is normal. But when it comes to theism, you are reluctant to open your mind, any further than what you are prepared to accept. You keep saying there are inconsistencies. But when you do post what you consider them to be, I find them lacking any real explanation. They are more emotional than rational. It's not you asserting that you're atheist, it's what you say that reveals your atheism. All you have done here, is insult me, and spouted your atheism, as though it is a default position. Well I can certainly see how you arrive at your conclusion. Jan.
So how is God knowable, in your opinion? Logical implication of God being defined as the source of all, the ultimate being, IS, etc. No, it doesn't elude me at all. It is quite clear that you believe in God. In fact that seems to be all you have in this debate, or any other. You repeate it as though it is an explanation when it is simply a statement of fact: you believe in God. No, I can comprehend it, thanks. It works through an a priori assumption that God exists followed by confirmation bias requiring interpretation of facts/evidence (that do not nor can not logically lead to the conclusion of God) as being evidence for God. And thus the cycle of believing to believe is continued, I can comprehend many systems to be able to spot the inherent flaw in one over another. Do not mistake rejection of one for not understanding it; that is simply another fallacy on your part. My mind is open to it, Jan, but again you confuse rejection of belief as an absolute rejection and a belief in the non-existence of God, Of course you do, Jan, and I would expect nothing else. You are as dishonest as they come, squirming, evading and avoiding your way through what you might consider a discussion. No one can stop you thinking what you will, Jan. Your inconsistencies are highlighted to you, your ignoring and avoiding addressing of them is dishonest. Yes, usually that bit when I say "I lack the belief that God exists". You might consider them insults, but all we are doing is holding a candle up to your mirror so that hopefully you can see for yourself. Spout or otherwise, I do consider atheism to be a default position: one should not, in my view, believe in the existence of anything without evidence that can only logically support that existence. If the same evidence can equally support two or more alternatives then it is irrational to hold belief in the correctness of one over the other based on that evidence. And to hold an a priori assumption as you do, and to not recognise the question-begging that you then put forth as an actual argument... that's not a default position but simply the position of someone who has not been able to escape the believe to believe cycle. No, I honestly doubt very much that you can.
We are spiritually connected to God. How does that make God "utterly unknowable? Not believing in God, is no different to not believing in singing dancing ashtrays. Unfortunately you cannot help but think believing in God is simply the opposite of what you believe. Like I said... I'm not mistaking anything for anything. You comprehend it purely from your perspective as an atheist. For you, there is no God, and you cannot comprehend how that for other people God Is. Either you're lacking something (universal meaning applies), or life is, as according to Sarkus. There's nothing confusing about what I say Sarkus. I know that, band I know you know that. It is something you have to say. The alternative is to actually discuss. But that would mean you are without God. At present, you accept you are without God, but you cannot accept God. You make up your own terms, of acceptance with is simply another way of continuance without God. The trouble is you don't know that's what you're doing. Show me where I've actually been dishonest. So if I said that, would you accept it as something true about me? Where have I been hypocritical? The real issue is that you cannot comprehend what I'm saying. You need to put it into terms you can comprehend. The problem is, you have no comprehension of God, other than what you read, or have been told. You think God is something purely external, that you are a separate phenomenon. That's fair enough. There is no evidence as far as you're aware, and you cannot believe in something that does not exist. But that is all that available to you. Trouble is you cannot accept that. Your world view must be everyone's. This is all you can spout, because you need to justify your position. It's not enough that you are without God, we must all be in your position. This way you don't lack God, because as far as you're aware, there is no God. You are without God. Everything stems from that fundamental position. Jan.
So you claim. So you no doubt believe. How do you know? You're in a locked room... no windows, no doors, no light... how do you know what is outside? If you put the notion of God on the same level as singing dancing ashtrays then perhaps, to you, it really is no different. I'm sure it helps you to sleep better to think that is true. Indeed - like you keep saying, and keep affirming. No, I can comprehend. But your belief that it is so doesn't make it true. You are simply too quick to dismiss people rejecting your position as them not comprehending it. I'm sure that you can not understand how one can comprehend your view and not also believe. I am lacking something, Jan. I'm lacking belief in God. You have it. I don't. I lack it. None of which speaks in any way to the veracity of what is believed in or implies the existence of what is believed in. No, Jan, you really do confuse atheism with strong atheism. You always have. Sheesh, I almost spilt my coffee with laughter. Yes, Jan, discussion really is an actual alternative. Try giving it a go. You may actually like it. I am without many things that exist and without many things (as we all are) that do not. What of it? I am also without any number of things that do not exist. I can also not accept them. What of it? And there you go with your a priori assumption that God exists, the assumption that you can not logically support the veracity of without question begging. You've never done it yet, but I'm willing to wait for that day you do. Every time you avoid, evade, nosedive a thread, fail to answer questions asked of you while expecting others to answer your, every time you post inconsistently yet refuse to address it... and no, I'm not going to give you specifics when the threads in this forum are littered with them. I'm also not the only one to call you out on your prevalence for doing so: JamesR, DaveC, Baldeee et al have all done so, with countless examples. Not now, Jan, no, as I no longer have any confidence that anything you say is said with honesty. I'm not suggesting you're hypocritical - merely that people are shining a light on your dishonesty, and if you look in a mirror then you may one day see what it is about you that people are noticing that you clearly are not... or don't want to. No, Jan. This is again you simply confusing rejection of your position with not being able to understand you. Do you not think it possible for someone to comprehend what you say and yet still disagree with you?? And you have a comprehension of God beyond what you have read, or have been told? If you think so then I go back to my question at the top: how do you know? And please try to answer without an a priori assumption that God exists. Where have I said that my worldview must be everyone's?? See, this is part of your dishonesty, Jan - simply assuming you know what the other person thinks, making up crap and attributing it to them. We're not your strawman atheist, Jan, which maybe you'd realise if you actually tried listening to people. Repeat that mantra, Jan. Repeat it until you can fall asleep with a smile, if that is your desire. It gets you nowhere. It gets any "discussion" nowhere. You are incapable of listening and instead simply argue against your strawman atheist. And you wonder where you're ever seen as being dishonest. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, I've sated my curiosity for a while as to why you're simply not worth the effort, Jan.
How do we know anything? How do you know that you need what you regard as evidence to know that God Is? You question is about fundamentals. It is our starting point. I have come to understand what terms like "spiritual" mean, by reading. I use that term because it describes the basis of what I understand, and recognise. You only need to know that there is an outside. Notice you took for granted that there is an outside. That is generally what atheists do. Because for them there is no God, and they believe that for them to start believing in God, the God must be shown to exist. Otherwise it carries on that there is no God, just as there are no invisible dragons, or celestial teapots, despite belief in them. Obviously you lack belief in God, because there is no God for you to believe, in. You lack claims of belief in God. Because for you there is no God. Your assertions are atheist, but your actual position is strong atheism. Because for you, there is no God. Therefore God for you, does not currently exist. What doesn't exist? And how do you know they don't exist? You assume that God can be found via evidence of your choosing. You assume that God is "utterly unknowable". You assume that God Isn't. What can't I logically support. Belief in God, is natural to human beings, as is no belief in God. Why do you deny God? Because there is no evidence? Why do you need evidence for something that is demonstrably natural to human beings? The fact is, you are without God. I believe in God. I don't believe you. You don't comprehend it fundamentally. It is a part of human nature. As humans we can choose to accept or not. How do you know that you need evidence to know that God Is? Is it because for you there is no God, and you cannot comprehend how it is that people can believe in something that you have no idea of? These are our fundamental positions Sarkus. You imply it every time you ask where is the evidence for God. Then continue as though that is the default position. Your problem is that you refuse to listen. You lack the comprehension, so you attack the person. That's all you do. I think you're frightened to look at the pov I put across. So you attack. Jan.
Point of order: Jan's entire argument, start to finish is an ad hom. He wishes to believe that only believers can discuss the concept of God, and rationalists cannot. Over and over again, he insists that if you don't believe God exists, then you can't discuss the concept of God. This is as fallacious as if unicorn believers are the only ones who can discuss the concept of unicorns. Until a unicorn-believer can produce a unicorn, they have no more debative credibility than a unicorn-skeptic. And unicorn skeptics are quite capable of discussing the concept of unicorns. Jan will not address any actual argument presented, because he knows that is an argument he cannot win. So he merely tries to discredit the arguer, rather than any argument. This is a logical fallacy. And it's a whopper. He even notes it as such in the quote above. Jan forgets that when he points his finger at someone, three of his fingers are pointing back at him. Until this stops, there is no discussion happening here. Watch. Watch him do it again. He will attack the opponent, rather than the opponent's argument. 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
How indeed. Perhaps you tell me how you think you know that God is? I don't know. I'm open minded as to how God, if He exists, might make himself known. But I am not aware of anything that points to God existing, so I remain unknown on the matter. Hence agnostic. Recognise? What is it you think you are recognising? Furthermore, how do you know that what you are reading is correct? Or do you just take it on faith? No, I simply asked you a question. My own response to such a question would be "from the inside, how does one know there is an outside?" Just because someone asks a question that suggests there might be an outside does not mean that there is. Some might. Perhaps your strawman does. And you think this is not a rational position for them to hold? However, I do dispute that they necessarily think that there is no God... they may well simply not know. Yes, Jan, I lack belief in God, the thing you have that I don't, which makes me an atheist. Note that there is no implication in that lack that God actually exists. Can you comprehend that yet? I lack belief in God because I am not aware that God either exists or does not exist. There may well be a God for me to believe in, unless you are again wandering down the notion that God is a wholly subjective viewpoint? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And once again you fail to distinguish between one's intellectual position and the apparent practical position they hold due to practice requiring binary decision-making. Whatever you want to believe, Jan. Whatever makes you sleep better at night. Once again you fail to listen to the person, to actually even try to comprehend, but instead revert to your strawman version. Let X be the set of anything that does not exist in actuality, whether we are aware of it not existing or not, whether we know it doesn't exist or not. Any member of set X necessarily does not exist. Sure, the question of how one knows the member of X does not exist is valid, and unless I am aware/know it does not exist I would be agnostic. Why would I choose to believe that it does exist, though? No, I don't. I have no knowledge as to how God, if He exists, might make himself known. I only have what other people claim, and the question then goes to how can I know that they are telling the truth. And so it keeps going. No, it is a conclusion based on the notion that God Is and/or that God is the initial cause etc. No, I just don't know that God Is. Why do you insist on arguing against your strawman? That God exists. And by "logically support the veracity" I mean that one might be able to make a valid argument (the KCA is a reasonable stab but not without its criticisms) but you can't demonstrate the soundness of the argument. So you accept that being natural is no arbiter of the veracity of the claim. Good, we're getting somewhere. Show me (through evidence or through a logically sound argument) that there is a God to deny. That is part of the reason why I lack belief in God, yes, but while there may be other means to knowing, I am not aware of them. Superstition is natural to human beings. Should we be accepting the veracity of all superstitions? Why do you think being natural to humans should exclude it from critical thought, from examination of the core principles and tenets of what is being considered "natural"? I consider that lazy thinking. Given your notion of what "without" means, you certainly claim that God exists is a fact. It is what you believe, and you also believe in God, yes. But it is NOT a fact that God exists. It is an opinion, a belief, a claim, upon which many worldviews are based. You believe that God exists and your belief extends to a certainty. But it is not one you can actually verify. All you can do is provide arguments that rely on the a priori assumption that God exists. But you won't see that. Fortunately what you believe or not is irrelevant to reality. So you want to believe. Fair enough. And being part of human nature does not excuse it from critical thought. Is there where you intend to go to now? The notion that because you see it as "part of human nature" that it is beyond criticism, beyond the need to examine they whys and wherefores, beyond the need to examine, explore and question?? That is should just be accepted or not without question? I don't. I have never said otherwise. Please put down your strawman. I wouldn't know how to answer, Jan, because I'm not your strawman. When you want to discuss with me, let me know. So you have taken a position, whether it was a part of human nature or otherwise, and excluded it from further critical thought. Based on your earlier comment I assume you have also accepted that, being accepted solely because it is part of human nature, the veracity of it is unable to be established, and the best you can do is compound your belief through question begging? Or are you going to cling to the reality of God being a fact? Remember, you said belief in God was human nature, as is not believing in God. If the reality of one is to be considered a fact through being human nature compounded by question-begging, then surely so is the other. And you are left with two mutually exclusive facts. Another Jan paradox, perhaps. Anyhoo, we seem to have finally bottomed out this discussion: your belief is based on your a priori assumption (being part of human nature that is not questioned further) and compounded through question-begging confirmation bias. Got it. Thanks. Au contraire. I am open to others having worldviews that they find acceptable to them, as mine is to me. It makes for good discussion, exploring the differences. You should try it some day. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I attack the argument presented, Jan, as is done in debate and discussion of this nature. I have looked at your pov, and you have finally stripped it back to accept that you have an a priori assumption that you justify holding unquestioned due to it being "human nature". It is not a position I agree with, Jan. What you see as attacking the person is actually an attack against the manner of their posts. But since you are the person making those posts, I guess you will see it as personal. So be it. Maybe address the manner of your posts and there won't be anything you see as attacking the person. Your call, Jan.
The way that anybody knows things. IOW, give me something that I'm prepared to accept. How do you recognise something that is relevant to you? It is natural for us to relate to others experience, on an actual level. I believe it called empathy. Already you have made assumptions. You only seem to accept one way of acquiring knowledge. To have evidence, satisfactory to your level of acceptance. Because we are intelligent enough to realise that the room was intelligently designed and built. From their perspective, yes. Because for them there is no God. It would be weird if they didn't think that, because for them, there is no God. From an atheist perspective, there is no God. From a theist perspective, God just Is. Those are fundamental positions. You think like this because there is currently no God. You cannot get around that. There's no failure involved Sarkus. Thought and practice are bedfellows. The whole marketing industry relies purely on that. "X" being a made up concept. While we can work with "X", the reality is "X" does not mean anything, other than a label you attach to a concept, and act as though, it is real, or even a possibility. There is actually no way of knowing what does not exist, because the moment we think something does not exist, then it exists in some aspect or other. Like I said before a unicorn is an amalgamation of things that do exist, operating in a dimension(s) we can comprehend, because of some aspect of our experience. Both collectively, and individually. What makes you think you require knowledge for God to be revealed? As it not occurred to you that God Is, but due to your accepted, fundamental position, you are currently unable to access God? Why is it? That is not the way to conclude that God exists. You can always introduce "X" factors, and drag it out. If it was necessary to know God Is, via this method. There would be no natural theism, or atheism. Because most people aren't logicians, or knowledgeable of logical analysis. Being natural means it is reality. There is a reason why accept God, or not. This implies that God IS, but there are who don't accept that. In that way, the situation is balanced, and both parties are fundamentally correct in acceptance and denial. There is God, and there is without God. Already addressed. You only need to require a theist to produce suitable evidence, or an argument which can defeat any "X" factor you care to throw up, in order to show God Is. The irony is that, that is not the to comprehend God. Murder is natural to humans. It doesn't mean we have to engage in it, or accept that because it is natural, it is a good and worthwhile activity. You can critically examine it as much as you like. You can even prsent a fantastic argument to highlight the advantage of cold-blooded murder. But it won't change the fact that it is wrong. That fact is fundamental. I no more need to claim God Is, is a fact, than you need to claim that evidence is a requirement of comprehension of God is a fact. You argue there is no evidence that support the existence of God. Why do you think this to be the case. An a priori assumptions perhaps? Jan.
