Are you accusing me of lying?

If you don't believe me, I'll elaborate, and then you can maybe begin to answer my questions: rather than insulting me for no reason.

My framework that allows for the possibility of Gods is one that considers the universe/multiverse as a mathematical infinity within which there is a point of minimum complexity and by extention, a point of maximum complexity. That point of maximum complexity (within my framework) would likely resemble an alien species that is so advanced that: (a) they would be the strongest candidates for bringing about our existence and; (b) from our perspective, they would be 'Godly' in every possible attribute.

My (possible) God may not be the God that you have, but to imply that I'm lying is just despicable.

Are you saying that "alien" really is equivalent to "god" in your mental framework? At this point, I'm accusing you more of being daft than being a liar.

Ummmmmmm... the ability to string words together in a syntactically correct manner does not imply that the words form a coherent thought. What do you even mean by "considering the universe as a mathematical infinity"?

What?

You're probably not lying. You just have no idea what you're saying.

Your framework of "God exists" comes down to an alien species of maximal complexity in the mathematical infinity of the multiverse that is 'Godly' in every possible attribute from our perspective. Are you sure that's what you want to go with?

And you perhaps think that this would motivate me to continue a conversation with you? I'm surprised you haven't been banned from here already.

I agree with this:
I also, in general, agree with this (although Is the world a globe? is a trivial question, whereas Is there a god? is far from it):
But then you take a sharp turn:
Now you have switched from saying that atheists have a responsibility to justify why they have 'not taken a position', to saying that they are unjustified in 'not taking a position'. Can you, err, justify your position?!



For W0X0F's benefit (I hope this is not overstepping, it's just from posts elsewhere in RGT):
Aaron is a Christian, not what you would consider a fundamentalist / literalist, and the only justification I have heard is the overall immorality in humanity (obviously there was more context when that was stated). That's probably as much detail as you will hear, I don't think he's interested in justifying his personal beliefs to RGT.

One thing I can say wrt asking theists about their beliefs: there can be occasions where snark is appropriate, but if you ask them about a magic sky daddy, you shouldn't expect much of a response.

Thanks Fish. I think Aaron is much more interested in demonstrating his debating prowess. He twists language and semantics to obfuscate the gist of the discussion and seems to arbitrarily decide which beliefs are justified.

Fair point. But I don't think anything in my characterization of the Christian god is incorrect. I find that many believers (in any religion) don't like it when their beliefs are held up to the light.

Some of the snark is just a reaction to Aaron's own snark. His ad hominem potshots get old. I'm told I lack reading comprehension. This response to VeeDDzz (above) drips with snark (or at least condescension):

Huge ego on this guy.

I believe most atheists that take the non-belief position are actually atheists in the sense that they really don't believe God exists (where God is some sort of traditional concept of God, and not some alien species). They have hundreds of reasons for rejecting God's existence that they articulate and no reasons that they accepting it. In what fair analysis where you have such an imbalance is it justified to continue to take no position? It doesn't really make sense. It seems to me to be a wholly unjustified position to take if you have such a disparity of argumentation.

It may be true that "some" of the snark is a reaction to mine. But considering how you entered this thread, it's unlikely that there's a legitimate conversation to be had with you even if I didn't have snark of my own.

See posts #51, 59, and Original Position's post in #75.

No, I don't actually think it's helping the conversation to move forward. I also don't believe there's much of a conversation to be had at this point.

When you say that belief in God is equivalent to belief in aliens, and then attempt to explain that by talking about a mathematical infinity and point of maximal complexity, there's really nothing left to say.

Nutjobs and science, enemies for life

And yes, believing in god and believing in aliens is exactly the same thing. DUCY?

No, its not. DUCY?

By definition (Oxford definition) something alien to anything from earth (or your home country) is just that - Alien. Furthermore, those who are willing to defend their belief in God, under critical scrutiny, will often avoid characterizing God using any specific attributes, making him/her fit within the broad definition of Alien quite neatly.

Nonetheless, I'm not a large fan of semantic masturbation so I might stop before I get really started.

I'm yet to see a legitimate challenge on the notion that "not-knowing" with regard to the existence of Aliens is equivalent to "not-knowing" with regard to the existence of Gods. The equivalence holds, especially if one's (potential) belief in God is predicated on the existence of Aliens.

The only way this equivalence can begin to break down is if you start characterizing God with very specific attributes, but this will more often not, put you in some rather muddy waters.

Even accepting a premise that boils down to "God must be an alien" isn't sufficient for the non-equivalence to not be totally obvious.

"God" and "alien" are not equivalent classes of objects. Under the absurd hypothesis above, "God" is a subset of "alien" (since "God" would only be the maximally complex alien and not a sub-maximally complex alien) and hence the two claims cannot be seen as equivalent.

I assumed that he used the term "Alien" in the usual sense of conventional life of extraterrestrial origin. I also assumed he wanted to say more about the issue so I basically invited him to do so. Of course, if he was using the term alien in a very broad sense, then God could be included in the term. In that case his statement is true but of no significance.

In either event, he either said nothing or had nothing to say so I think the subject can be safely closed.

The Deepak Chopra of RGT, so many words with so little meaning.

Totally agree. I think Aaron W. and VeeDDzz could fill hundreds of books but say little in them.

Sure they are different Aaron W. but is the method the same?

I thought of the exact same comparison a few days ago (when I read the last post by Aaron W. that I'll ever read). That is spot on.

Yeah this is kinda cowardly tbh but then trolls going to troll I guess

What do you mean by "the method"? And "the method" of what?

People come to beliefs about different types of things for different reasons. The reason I believe that "1+1=2" is very different than the reason I believe that "a closed, bounded subset of the real line is compact" even though these are both mathematical claims, and that both claims have formal mathematical proofs of their veracity. The origins of those beliefs stem from very different types of mental processes.

so you have a different method of testing the validity of existence say a bed to a chair?

so you have a different method of testing the validity of existence say a leprechaun to a vampire?

so you have a different method of testing the validity of existence say a God to an alien?

uh...what is that method you use to validate God?

I have a different method of testing the validity of the existence of a chair to an oncoming car. I'm perfectly willing to walk up to the chair and touch it. I'll trust the existence of the car based on sight alone.

This stuff isn't complicated. It's a reflection of how people in real life actually go about interacting with the world. I know of nobody who tries to determine the existence of oncoming cars by physical contact.

Edit: I use a thermometer to validate the temperature of my oven when it's baking. I use my finger to validate the temperature of the water coming out of my faucet. Again, it's all simple stuff.

A car has properties so does a chair either resting or in motion. I'm glad you are seeing sense now before you were off the walls even for me and I know I'm nutty.

so the question is can I not believe in god the same way I don't believe in aliens? stay with me here, and yes they are both different things.

hint: what is the properties of god?
don't know

hint: what is the properties of aliens?
don't know

therefore I don't believe in either until some property is produced to make me believe otherwise.

your doing well. keep the faith. fight the battle.

If you think you don't know any properties of aliens, then there's very little I can do for you. These words are not undefined entities. Here's a simple way to think about it:

Is your chair an alien? Why not? Most likely, your answer will be of the form "Because it is not <something>." That <something> is a property of being an alien that your chair lacks. Therefore, you know of at least some property that you're expecting of an alien.

But if you think your chair might be an alien... again, there's very little I can do for you.

More importantly (since this was the actual point of contention), you've acknowledged that "God" and "aliens" are not the same thing, so that belief (or non-belief) in one is not equivalent to belief (or non-belief) in the other.

I know my chair is a chair but not because I compare it to an alien.

so the question is my chair an alien does not make sense to me because I don't know what an alien is. because to answer such a question to you I would describe what a chair is, timber, metal, 4 legs, back, a seat, how it behaves and the common purpose of a chair and perhaps point to one and say thats a chair. failing that and if the other guy pushed me well...is it an alien?, I would ask him or her, in this case you what you mean? then you would describe what you thought was an alien I would then take your description of an alien and compare it to the chair and I would answer no I don't believe that chair is what you describe. I would then drive you down to the local hospital in fear you might hurt yourself.

if you mean on a scale. then yes I agree with you. both of them are right down there with I don't believe in either. I think aliens might have an edge because they could be a chair depending on the properties and description.