"Faith" and "Faith"

[Meriweather]

Arming the Teachers

In post #78, "personal relationship" is self-glossing stupidity, which by default always already gets precisely the reality it deserves.

'The same logic of radical evil informs Derrida's analysis of faith. Derrida argues that faith is constitutive of every relation to the other, since one cannot (know [italics]) what the other will do or (see [italics]) what the other has in mind, or whether he or she wants to deceive me. So I have to trust the other -- that is faith. Faith is blind. Consequently, faith must be open to being deceived, trust must be open to being violated, and the credit granted to the other must be open to being ruinous.'
(Haegglund, Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life, p. 126)

Except in schools.

You misunderstand. Faith is based on love of God and love of one's fellowman. An example: In school shootings we always have stories of people protecting students or fellow classmates. I also argue it is not a matter of trust, but rather one of respecting the humanity in each individual. I may not be able to trust everyone, but I can treat them with respect--even when it means dealing firmly with someone.

 

[badger2]

You misunderstand. Faith is not exclusively religious but is a substitute for a lack of knowledge of what the other will do, regardless of whether there is respectful fear of the other or the fear of the lack of respect from the other, either of which are again, not religious concepts to be smuggled into the argument as an evangelical enterprise. Absoulute knowledge is death. God is death.

 

[ding]

Right now, Czernobog doesn't see anyway he can possibly lose our current debate. He is so certain in his ability to not be wrong that he hasn't even considered what I may possibly argue. Before I arrive at objective truth for anything, I explore all sides to see which side is the most credible. I don't believe he has ever done this with respect to belief in a higher power. He doesn't see how it could be possible so he has never bothered to look. Again the root cause is his certainty that he can't possibly be wrong.

So he he is never going to seek the personal relationship which is the proof he is looking for.

All I know is studying evolution, string theory, origins of the universe, or the birth of a solar system (as interesting as these may be) aren't going to be of any help in my personal life or relationships. Atheists are not going to tell you to give up religion and believe in verb conjugations instead, but they do seem to feel that science can/should replace religion. How do they see that working?

That's all true, but the problem is that they don't understand that none of those things are inconsistent with a higher power. So rather than being an excuse to not to look any further, it is in reality a reason to do so. They are without excuse because God has plainly shown them through what he has created. But rather than worshiping (which they don't understand what that means) the creator, they worship what was created (i.e. the material world).

 

[zaangalewa]

Which starts as a strawman, which I addressed and then I addressed the OP which was faith but not the way you wanted to discuss it.

Still demonstrating that you do not understand the concept of a Strawman fallacy. Unless you are saying that theists don't call atheists hypocrites for criticising theists' faith, while asserting a faith of their own. Is that what you are asserting is a "Strawman"? Because if that is what you are asserting, I will be happy to post quotes for you, from this very forum of theists do just that.

That's exactly what I am saying, Czernobog. We criticize your criticism of our beliefs. You are the one who has turned that into your logical fallacy strawman that we criticize your faith.

How many times do I have to tell you that I believe that you have faith that God does not exist. See? Right there I have just proven your OP wrong. I am not criticizing your faith that God doesn't exist. I am acknowledging your faith that God does not exist.

I'm not suggesting that you are "criticising our faith". I am suggesting that theists criticise atheists by claiming that we have faith in things which is no different than their faith in God. Do you, or do you not admit that this is true?

Faith is faith. Are you telling me that when you have faith in something that doesn't mean you have complete trust in it?

Actually, no. When I speak of having faith in something, I, generally, mean that I have a reasonable expectation in it. When I drop a ball from the roof of a building, I have faith - a reasonable expectation - that it will fall to the ground. Do I have complete trust that the ball will do this? No. Because, according to the Uncertainty Principle, there is a non-zero chance that it will float. That means there is a chance, however remote, that something occurs to disrupt gravity. However, because of the Law of Probability, I still have faith - a reasonable expectation - that the ball will drop.

Herein are the two differences between how theists use the word "faith", and how atheists use the word "faith":

First of all you don't know how not existing theists use the word faith. But for Catholics for example it has nothing to do with "religious faith" to have a justifiable hope to be able to drop a ball from a roof. We know we are able to do so - and if we know we are not able to do so (on reason of a disability for example) then we will trust in god to be able to find another stupid Catholic who will drop the ball for us from the roof. And if not a Catholic will help us then perhaps someone else. God could send us a Buddhist from China for example to help us. The ways of the Lord are full of miracles. Could he sent an atheist too to help us? For example a Nazi or a Commie? In this case it would perhaps be a bigger kind of wonder and we would be not so full of trust. Reason: bad experiences.

First, theists free acknowledge that their "faith" is not based on any objective evidence whatsoever; "...confidence in what we hope for...". Not what we know; what we hope for. Atheists on the other hand view their "faith" as the expectation of future behaviour based on previous experience, It is based on what atheists know.

Second, theists view "faith" as, as you put it, complete trust in that which they claim to have faith. Not so, with atheists. We atheists have complete trust in...well...nothing. We recognise that the universe is chaotic, and there is nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty.

That's exactly what Christians say: You never can be sure the next morning will the sun shine again, only because it was in this way a few billion times. Today's the first day of your future. May this day today show us the way to heaven again.

Thus when we speak of "having faith in..." science, physics, or any thing else, we are merely asserting our reasonable expectations of outcome, again, bnased on prior experiential evidence.

Do you see the difference?

Sure. If you don't trust in Edison then you have to make light with a candle. But if you trust in god then Edison will install everywhere in heaven new star lighters.

 

[Czernobog]

Still demonstrating that you do not understand the concept of a Strawman fallacy. Unless you are saying that theists don't call atheists hypocrites for criticising theists' faith, while asserting a faith of their own. Is that what you are asserting is a "Strawman"? Because if that is what you are asserting, I will be happy to post quotes for you, from this very forum of theists do just that.

That's exactly what I am saying, Czernobog. We criticize your criticism of our beliefs. You are the one who has turned that into your logical fallacy strawman that we criticize your faith.

How many times do I have to tell you that I believe that you have faith that God does not exist. See? Right there I have just proven your OP wrong. I am not criticizing your faith that God doesn't exist. I am acknowledging your faith that God does not exist.

I'm not suggesting that you are "criticising our faith". I am suggesting that theists criticise atheists by claiming that we have faith in things which is no different than their faith in God. Do you, or do you not admit that this is true?

Faith is faith. Are you telling me that when you have faith in something that doesn't mean you have complete trust in it?

Actually, no. When I speak of having faith in something, I, generally, mean that I have a reasonable expectation in it. When I drop a ball from the roof of a building, I have faith - a reasonable expectation - that it will fall to the ground. Do I have complete trust that the ball will do this? No. Because, according to the Uncertainty Principle, there is a non-zero chance that it will float. That means there is a chance, however remote, that something occurs to disrupt gravity. However, because of the Law of Probability, I still have faith - a reasonable expectation - that the ball will drop.

Herein are the two differences between how theists use the word "faith", and how atheists use the word "faith":

First, theists free acknowledge that their "faith" is not based on any objective evidence whatsoever; "...confidence in what we hope for...". Not what we know; what we hope for. Atheists on the other hand view their "faith" as the expectation of future behaviour based on previous experience, It is based on what atheists know.

Second, theists view "faith" as, as you put it, complete trust in that which they claim to have faith. Not so, with atheists. We atheists have complete trust in...well...nothing. We recognise that the universe is chaotic, and there is nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty. Thus when we speak of "having faith in..." science, physics, or any thing else, we are merely asserting our reasonable expectations of outcome, again, bnased on prior experiential evidence.

Do you see the difference?

Let's test that.

Do you have reasonable certainty that God doesn't exist or do you have faith that God doesn't exist?

Neither. You are misrepresenting my position. I recognise there is no objective evidence to assert with any reasonable expectation that God exists. "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis based on lack of objective, verifiable evidence to assert otherwise. Once presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will alter my position.

Your question, whether intended or not, implies that I have motive to actively deny, and disprove the existence of God. I don't. I don't have a dog in this hunt. Wherever the objective evidence leads is where the objective evidence leads. It has simply not, in 6,000 year led to "God exists". It has, conversely, consistently replaced the religious supernatural explanation for every, hitherto "mysterious" phenomenon with a rational, natural, evidence-supported explanation. Based on the prior performance, I see no reason for that to change.

 

[badger2]

#83 confuses a 'higher power' (just as would any other Masonic boy scout recruit ("Do you believe in a supreme being?") with finitude, from which no higher power escapes lest if be annihilated simultaneously. There is no such thing as absolute being in itself, which is what #83 tries to smuggle in.

 

[badger2]

One reason #85 takes the null hypothesis bait is the fear to confront the concept of temporal finitude, which is about time. That god is death also means that god exists in non-existence, which is the illusion that the subject now reading this has, always passing from one moment to the next.

'Such radical atheism follows from the thinking of the trace that informs Derrida's writing from beginning to end. The structure of the trace entails that everything is subjected to the infinite finitude of time and consequently that god himself is "an effect of the trace." It follows that any notion of god as a positive infinity is contradicted from within by the spacing of time, which cannot be appropriated by religion. As Derrida writes in "Faith and Knowledge," the spacing of time "will never have entered religion and will never permit itself to be sacralized, sanctified, humanized, theologized" (58/34).'
(Haegglund, Radical Atheism, p. 153)

 

[ding]

That's exactly what I am saying, Czernobog. We criticize your criticism of our beliefs. You are the one who has turned that into your logical fallacy strawman that we criticize your faith.

How many times do I have to tell you that I believe that you have faith that God does not exist. See? Right there I have just proven your OP wrong. I am not criticizing your faith that God doesn't exist. I am acknowledging your faith that God does not exist.

I'm not suggesting that you are "criticising our faith". I am suggesting that theists criticise atheists by claiming that we have faith in things which is no different than their faith in God. Do you, or do you not admit that this is true?

Faith is faith. Are you telling me that when you have faith in something that doesn't mean you have complete trust in it?

Actually, no. When I speak of having faith in something, I, generally, mean that I have a reasonable expectation in it. When I drop a ball from the roof of a building, I have faith - a reasonable expectation - that it will fall to the ground. Do I have complete trust that the ball will do this? No. Because, according to the Uncertainty Principle, there is a non-zero chance that it will float. That means there is a chance, however remote, that something occurs to disrupt gravity. However, because of the Law of Probability, I still have faith - a reasonable expectation - that the ball will drop.

Herein are the two differences between how theists use the word "faith", and how atheists use the word "faith":

First, theists free acknowledge that their "faith" is not based on any objective evidence whatsoever; "...confidence in what we hope for...". Not what we know; what we hope for. Atheists on the other hand view their "faith" as the expectation of future behaviour based on previous experience, It is based on what atheists know.

Second, theists view "faith" as, as you put it, complete trust in that which they claim to have faith. Not so, with atheists. We atheists have complete trust in...well...nothing. We recognise that the universe is chaotic, and there is nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty. Thus when we speak of "having faith in..." science, physics, or any thing else, we are merely asserting our reasonable expectations of outcome, again, bnased on prior experiential evidence.

Do you see the difference?

Let's test that.

Do you have reasonable certainty that God doesn't exist or do you have faith that God doesn't exist?

Neither. You are misrepresenting my position. I recognise there is no objective evidence to assert with any reasonable expectation that God exists. "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis based on lack of objective, verifiable evidence to assert otherwise. Once presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will alter my position.

Your question, whether intended or not, implies that I have motive to actively deny, and disprove the existence of God. I don't. I don't have a dog in this hunt. Wherever the objective evidence leads is where the objective evidence leads. It has simply not, in 6,000 year led to "God exists". It has, conversely, consistently replaced the religious supernatural explanation for every, hitherto "mysterious" phenomenon with a rational, natural, evidence-supported explanation. Based on the prior performance, I see no reason for that to change.

But there is evidence. You reject it. Therefore, you are taking it on faith that God does not exist.

God exists outside of time and is impervious to inspection by science. So the only evidence you will accept - because you reject the evidence of his creation and logic for why it is his creation - is a null hypothesis because it is impossible to inspect him with the tools you are using.

So you have no way to verify his existence by your own choice because you are taking it on faith that he does not exist.

If you were not taking it on faith that he did not exist then you would study the evidence of what he created as evidence and deduce his existence using logic. As I have been doing for the last year. All of which you have rejected for no good reason because you took it on faith that he did not exist.

drop mic

 

[Czernobog]

I'm not suggesting that you are "criticising our faith". I am suggesting that theists criticise atheists by claiming that we have faith in things which is no different than their faith in God. Do you, or do you not admit that this is true?

Faith is faith. Are you telling me that when you have faith in something that doesn't mean you have complete trust in it?

Actually, no. When I speak of having faith in something, I, generally, mean that I have a reasonable expectation in it. When I drop a ball from the roof of a building, I have faith - a reasonable expectation - that it will fall to the ground. Do I have complete trust that the ball will do this? No. Because, according to the Uncertainty Principle, there is a non-zero chance that it will float. That means there is a chance, however remote, that something occurs to disrupt gravity. However, because of the Law of Probability, I still have faith - a reasonable expectation - that the ball will drop.

Herein are the two differences between how theists use the word "faith", and how atheists use the word "faith":

First, theists free acknowledge that their "faith" is not based on any objective evidence whatsoever; "...confidence in what we hope for...". Not what we know; what we hope for. Atheists on the other hand view their "faith" as the expectation of future behaviour based on previous experience, It is based on what atheists know.

Second, theists view "faith" as, as you put it, complete trust in that which they claim to have faith. Not so, with atheists. We atheists have complete trust in...well...nothing. We recognise that the universe is chaotic, and there is nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty. Thus when we speak of "having faith in..." science, physics, or any thing else, we are merely asserting our reasonable expectations of outcome, again, bnased on prior experiential evidence.

Do you see the difference?

Let's test that.

Do you have reasonable certainty that God doesn't exist or do you have faith that God doesn't exist?

Neither. You are misrepresenting my position. I recognise there is no objective evidence to assert with any reasonable expectation that God exists. "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis based on lack of objective, verifiable evidence to assert otherwise. Once presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will alter my position.

Your question, whether intended or not, implies that I have motive to actively deny, and disprove the existence of God. I don't. I don't have a dog in this hunt. Wherever the objective evidence leads is where the objective evidence leads. It has simply not, in 6,000 year led to "God exists". It has, conversely, consistently replaced the religious supernatural explanation for every, hitherto "mysterious" phenomenon with a rational, natural, evidence-supported explanation. Based on the prior performance, I see no reason for that to change.

But there is evidence. You reject it. Therefore, you are taking it on faith that God does not exist.

You forgot a word there. I didn't say evidence. I said objective eveidence. Allow me to also include verifiable (as in repeatable) evidence.

God exists outside of time and is impervious to inspection by science.

How convenient.

So the only evidence you will accept - because you reject the evidence of his creation and logic for why it is his creation - is a null hypothesis because it is impossible to inspect him with the tools you are using.

Because your "evidence of his creation" is putting the cart before the horse. In order to call the universe the "creation of God" you must first prove the existence of God. After all, if God doesn't even exist, then how do you presume that he "created" the universe?
Assertion: God exists.
Assertion: The universe exists.
Assertion: God created the universe.
Conclusion: God exists.

You are making an argument by unproven assertion. Here's how you know your argument is logically flawed. Replace "God" with literally anything, and it still works:

Assertion: Invisible Giant Space Hamster exists.
Assertion: The Universe exists.
Assertion: The Giant Invisible Space Hamster created the Universe.
Conclusion: The Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists.

You can't use a presumed creation to prove the existence of an unproven creator. It is circular logic.

 

[ding]

Faith is faith. Are you telling me that when you have faith in something that doesn't mean you have complete trust in it?

Actually, no. When I speak of having faith in something, I, generally, mean that I have a reasonable expectation in it. When I drop a ball from the roof of a building, I have faith - a reasonable expectation - that it will fall to the ground. Do I have complete trust that the ball will do this? No. Because, according to the Uncertainty Principle, there is a non-zero chance that it will float. That means there is a chance, however remote, that something occurs to disrupt gravity. However, because of the Law of Probability, I still have faith - a reasonable expectation - that the ball will drop.

Herein are the two differences between how theists use the word "faith", and how atheists use the word "faith":

First, theists free acknowledge that their "faith" is not based on any objective evidence whatsoever; "...confidence in what we hope for...". Not what we know; what we hope for. Atheists on the other hand view their "faith" as the expectation of future behaviour based on previous experience, It is based on what atheists know.

Second, theists view "faith" as, as you put it, complete trust in that which they claim to have faith. Not so, with atheists. We atheists have complete trust in...well...nothing. We recognise that the universe is chaotic, and there is nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty. Thus when we speak of "having faith in..." science, physics, or any thing else, we are merely asserting our reasonable expectations of outcome, again, bnased on prior experiential evidence.

Do you see the difference?

Let's test that.

Do you have reasonable certainty that God doesn't exist or do you have faith that God doesn't exist?

Neither. You are misrepresenting my position. I recognise there is no objective evidence to assert with any reasonable expectation that God exists. "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis based on lack of objective, verifiable evidence to assert otherwise. Once presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will alter my position.

Your question, whether intended or not, implies that I have motive to actively deny, and disprove the existence of God. I don't. I don't have a dog in this hunt. Wherever the objective evidence leads is where the objective evidence leads. It has simply not, in 6,000 year led to "God exists". It has, conversely, consistently replaced the religious supernatural explanation for every, hitherto "mysterious" phenomenon with a rational, natural, evidence-supported explanation. Based on the prior performance, I see no reason for that to change.

But there is evidence. You reject it. Therefore, you are taking it on faith that God does not exist.

You forgot a word there. I didn't say evidence. I said objective eveidence. Allow me to also include verifiable (as in repeatable) evidence.

God exists outside of time and is impervious to inspection by science.

How convenient.

So the only evidence you will accept - because you reject the evidence of his creation and logic for why it is his creation - is a null hypothesis because it is impossible to inspect him with the tools you are using.

Because your "evidence of his creation" is putting the cart before the horse. In order to call the universe the "creation of God" you must first prove the existence of God. After all, if God doesn't even exist, then how do you presume that he "created" the universe?
Assertion: God exists.
Assertion: The universe exists.
Assertion: God created the universe.
Conclusion: God exists.

You are making an argument by unproven assertion. Here's how you know your argument is logically flawed. Replace "God" with literally anything, and it still works:

Assertion: Invisible Giant Space Hamster exists.
Assertion: The Universe exists.
Assertion: The Giant Invisible Space Hamster created the Universe.
Conclusion: The Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists.

You can't use a presumed creation to prove the existence of an unproven creator. It is circular logic.

See post #88. That's all I need.

 

[zaangalewa]

... It has simply not, in 6,000 year led to "God exists". ...

What's totally wrong. You can see everywhere the creation of god and if you take a 13.8 million years old particle then you will see printed in little sub-particle letters "made in China" on it. And if even China is made from god - how could everything else not be made from god?

More serios: "Existing" is everything what has possible effects within a deterministic causal structure (=normal determinism and/or deterministic chaos). Because the universe expands we think - (if we believe that we are able to think backwards into time, what's not sure) - everything had a first beginning, a first cause. I don't know how often I told you and others here the very very very simple "truth" that a first cause is named "first cause" because it has no cause. A first cause has no cause. Again: A first cause has no cause. That's why we think - (whether we believe this or not in a spiritual form of belief is unimportant for Christians) - that god made everything out of nothing.

In modern words: The question is "What was before the big bang?" a nothing or not a nothing? But we are not able to ask this question because there was no "before" before time existed. The same question would be "What's outside of the space-time?" (There is no "outside" - wherever we are, we are always 'only' in the middle of an expanding universe, which expands from all points into all directions.)

But still today we know god spoke with Moses in a thorn bush. Still we know Jesus spoke with god - and we know lots and lots of others who did the same. So god exists in all forms of logic. (By the way: God is logos). For example the logic, which judges are using.

I know for example for all equality-rights only one source: the word of god. All equality rights are only the result of the fact (fact="I heard it from god") or idea (idea="I told others what I heard from god") that everyone is a child of god. So for sure our world is also a result of the belief in god.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, no. When I speak of having faith in something, I, generally, mean that I have a reasonable expectation in it. When I drop a ball from the roof of a building, I have faith - a reasonable expectation - that it will fall to the ground. Do I have complete trust that the ball will do this? No. Because, according to the Uncertainty Principle, there is a non-zero chance that it will float. That means there is a chance, however remote, that something occurs to disrupt gravity. However, because of the Law of Probability, I still have faith - a reasonable expectation - that the ball will drop.

Herein are the two differences between how theists use the word "faith", and how atheists use the word "faith":

First, theists free acknowledge that their "faith" is not based on any objective evidence whatsoever; "...confidence in what we hope for...". Not what we know; what we hope for. Atheists on the other hand view their "faith" as the expectation of future behaviour based on previous experience, It is based on what atheists know.

Second, theists view "faith" as, as you put it, complete trust in that which they claim to have faith. Not so, with atheists. We atheists have complete trust in...well...nothing. We recognise that the universe is chaotic, and there is nothing that can be asserted with 100% certainty. Thus when we speak of "having faith in..." science, physics, or any thing else, we are merely asserting our reasonable expectations of outcome, again, bnased on prior experiential evidence.

Do you see the difference?

Let's test that.

Do you have reasonable certainty that God doesn't exist or do you have faith that God doesn't exist?

Neither. You are misrepresenting my position. I recognise there is no objective evidence to assert with any reasonable expectation that God exists. "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis based on lack of objective, verifiable evidence to assert otherwise. Once presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will alter my position.

Your question, whether intended or not, implies that I have motive to actively deny, and disprove the existence of God. I don't. I don't have a dog in this hunt. Wherever the objective evidence leads is where the objective evidence leads. It has simply not, in 6,000 year led to "God exists". It has, conversely, consistently replaced the religious supernatural explanation for every, hitherto "mysterious" phenomenon with a rational, natural, evidence-supported explanation. Based on the prior performance, I see no reason for that to change.

But there is evidence. You reject it. Therefore, you are taking it on faith that God does not exist.

You forgot a word there. I didn't say evidence. I said objective eveidence. Allow me to also include verifiable (as in repeatable) evidence.

God exists outside of time and is impervious to inspection by science.

How convenient.

So the only evidence you will accept - because you reject the evidence of his creation and logic for why it is his creation - is a null hypothesis because it is impossible to inspect him with the tools you are using.

Because your "evidence of his creation" is putting the cart before the horse. In order to call the universe the "creation of God" you must first prove the existence of God. After all, if God doesn't even exist, then how do you presume that he "created" the universe?
Assertion: God exists.
Assertion: The universe exists.
Assertion: God created the universe.
Conclusion: God exists.

You are making an argument by unproven assertion. Here's how you know your argument is logically flawed. Replace "God" with literally anything, and it still works:

Assertion: Invisible Giant Space Hamster exists.
Assertion: The Universe exists.
Assertion: The Giant Invisible Space Hamster created the Universe.
Conclusion: The Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists.

You can't use a presumed creation to prove the existence of an unproven creator. It is circular logic.

See post #88. That's all I need.

Hey. If you're happy with logically flawed reason, then you do you boo. Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

 

[badger2]

Haegglund crucifies #88's reasoning in Radical Atheism, forthcoming.

 

[badger2]

#88: 'god exists outside of time'

'Derrida's description of how "an interval must separate the present from what it is in order for the present to be itself" answers to a conundrum that surfaces in all philosophical accounts ot time. The crux is that even the slightest temporal moment must be divided in its becoming: separating before from after, past from future. Without the interval there would be no time, only a present forever remaining the same.

Thus, the movement of temporalization cannot be understood in terms of a presence that emerges from a past presence and that is overtaken by a future presence. The "past" cannot refer to what (has been [italics]) present, since any past was itself divided from its beginning. Likewise the "future" cannot refer to what (will be [it.]) present but designates a relentless displacement inherent in everything that happens Any so-called presence is divided in its very event and not onlyu in relation to what precedes or succeeds it.

The difficult question is how identity is possible in spite of such division. Certainly, the difference of time couls not even be marked without a synthesis that relates the past to the future and thus posits an identity over time. Philosophies of time-consciousness have usually solved the problem by anchoring the synthesis in a self-present subject, who relates the past to the future through memories and expectations that are given in the form of the present. The solution to the problem, however, must assume that the consciousness that experiences time in itself is present and thereby exempt from the division of time. Hence, if Derrida is right to insist that the self-identity of presence is impossible a priori, then it is all the more urgent to account for how the synthesis of time is possible without being grounded in the form of presence. Derrida's notion of "the trace" can be seen to account for such a synthesis, while insisting that this synthesis must be understood as "irreducibly non-simple," since it marks the interval of time as the precondition of identity.'
(Haegglund, Radical Atheism, pp. 17-18)

 

[badger2]

'....as the precondition of any identity:

"In constituting itself, in dividing itself dynamically, this interval is what might be called (spacing [italics]), the becoming-space of time or the becoming-time of space (temporization). And it is this constitution of the present, as an 'originary' and irreducibly nonsimple (and therefore, [stricto sensu] [it.]) nonoriginary)) synthesis of marks....that I propose to call arche-writing, arche-trace, or (differance [it.]). (Margins of Philosophy, 113/13-14)

(Haegglund, op cit)

This also answers to the notion of the word, and in Of Grammatology, Derrida is well aware of the theologian's arrogance and over confidence in this matter when he states, "Perhaps it will never end. Nevertheless, it's closure has been outlined," which points to the fact that much of screenal space is already out of style as we evolve towards a post-media era.

#91: 'That god made everything out of nothing.' Zizek, Absolute Recoil.

 

[ding]

Let's test that.

Do you have reasonable certainty that God doesn't exist or do you have faith that God doesn't exist?

Neither. You are misrepresenting my position. I recognise there is no objective evidence to assert with any reasonable expectation that God exists. "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis based on lack of objective, verifiable evidence to assert otherwise. Once presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will alter my position.

Your question, whether intended or not, implies that I have motive to actively deny, and disprove the existence of God. I don't. I don't have a dog in this hunt. Wherever the objective evidence leads is where the objective evidence leads. It has simply not, in 6,000 year led to "God exists". It has, conversely, consistently replaced the religious supernatural explanation for every, hitherto "mysterious" phenomenon with a rational, natural, evidence-supported explanation. Based on the prior performance, I see no reason for that to change.

But there is evidence. You reject it. Therefore, you are taking it on faith that God does not exist.

You forgot a word there. I didn't say evidence. I said objective eveidence. Allow me to also include verifiable (as in repeatable) evidence.

God exists outside of time and is impervious to inspection by science.

How convenient.

So the only evidence you will accept - because you reject the evidence of his creation and logic for why it is his creation - is a null hypothesis because it is impossible to inspect him with the tools you are using.

Because your "evidence of his creation" is putting the cart before the horse. In order to call the universe the "creation of God" you must first prove the existence of God. After all, if God doesn't even exist, then how do you presume that he "created" the universe?
Assertion: God exists.
Assertion: The universe exists.
Assertion: God created the universe.
Conclusion: God exists.

You are making an argument by unproven assertion. Here's how you know your argument is logically flawed. Replace "God" with literally anything, and it still works:

Assertion: Invisible Giant Space Hamster exists.
Assertion: The Universe exists.
Assertion: The Giant Invisible Space Hamster created the Universe.
Conclusion: The Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists.

You can't use a presumed creation to prove the existence of an unproven creator. It is circular logic.

See post #88. That's all I need.

Hey. If you're happy with logically flawed reason, then you do you boo. Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

When you use the term objective evidence you are implying that you must be able to observe God and measure God which is what I have already addressed in my last post.

You can measure and observe what he has created so that evidence is objective evidence. So the evidence for God's existence is objective. I can be observed and measured. And the collective weight of this objective evidence makes it definitive evidence.

 

[badger2]

#96: Nuts.

 

[Czernobog]

Neither. You are misrepresenting my position. I recognise there is no objective evidence to assert with any reasonable expectation that God exists. "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis based on lack of objective, verifiable evidence to assert otherwise. Once presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will alter my position.

Your question, whether intended or not, implies that I have motive to actively deny, and disprove the existence of God. I don't. I don't have a dog in this hunt. Wherever the objective evidence leads is where the objective evidence leads. It has simply not, in 6,000 year led to "God exists". It has, conversely, consistently replaced the religious supernatural explanation for every, hitherto "mysterious" phenomenon with a rational, natural, evidence-supported explanation. Based on the prior performance, I see no reason for that to change.

But there is evidence. You reject it. Therefore, you are taking it on faith that God does not exist.

You forgot a word there. I didn't say evidence. I said objective eveidence. Allow me to also include verifiable (as in repeatable) evidence.

God exists outside of time and is impervious to inspection by science.

How convenient.

So the only evidence you will accept - because you reject the evidence of his creation and logic for why it is his creation - is a null hypothesis because it is impossible to inspect him with the tools you are using.

Because your "evidence of his creation" is putting the cart before the horse. In order to call the universe the "creation of God" you must first prove the existence of God. After all, if God doesn't even exist, then how do you presume that he "created" the universe?
Assertion: God exists.
Assertion: The universe exists.
Assertion: God created the universe.
Conclusion: God exists.

You are making an argument by unproven assertion. Here's how you know your argument is logically flawed. Replace "God" with literally anything, and it still works:

Assertion: Invisible Giant Space Hamster exists.
Assertion: The Universe exists.
Assertion: The Giant Invisible Space Hamster created the Universe.
Conclusion: The Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists.

You can't use a presumed creation to prove the existence of an unproven creator. It is circular logic.

See post #88. That's all I need.

Hey. If you're happy with logically flawed reason, then you do you boo. Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

When you use the term objective evidence you are implying that you must be able to observe God and measure God which is what I have already addressed in my last post.

You can measure and observe what he has created so that evidence is objective evidence. So the evidence for God's existence is objective. I can be observed and measured. And the collective weight of this objective evidence makes it definitive evidence.

And I already demonstrated the logical flaw of your position, by demonstrating that you can replace "God' with, literally anything - The Giant spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Space Hamster, Allah, Zeus, etc - and the alleged logic still holds.
Any premise that can be asserted without sufficient evidence, then God can be rejected without evidence. And the more outrageous the premise, the stronger the evidence must be in order to be sufficient.

 

[ding]

But there is evidence. You reject it. Therefore, you are taking it on faith that God does not exist.

You forgot a word there. I didn't say evidence. I said objective eveidence. Allow me to also include verifiable (as in repeatable) evidence.

God exists outside of time and is impervious to inspection by science.

How convenient.

So the only evidence you will accept - because you reject the evidence of his creation and logic for why it is his creation - is a null hypothesis because it is impossible to inspect him with the tools you are using.

Because your "evidence of his creation" is putting the cart before the horse. In order to call the universe the "creation of God" you must first prove the existence of God. After all, if God doesn't even exist, then how do you presume that he "created" the universe?
Assertion: God exists.
Assertion: The universe exists.
Assertion: God created the universe.
Conclusion: God exists.

You are making an argument by unproven assertion. Here's how you know your argument is logically flawed. Replace "God" with literally anything, and it still works:

Assertion: Invisible Giant Space Hamster exists.
Assertion: The Universe exists.
Assertion: The Giant Invisible Space Hamster created the Universe.
Conclusion: The Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists.

You can't use a presumed creation to prove the existence of an unproven creator. It is circular logic.

See post #88. That's all I need.

Hey. If you're happy with logically flawed reason, then you do you boo. Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

When you use the term objective evidence you are implying that you must be able to observe God and measure God which is what I have already addressed in my last post.

You can measure and observe what he has created so that evidence is objective evidence. So the evidence for God's existence is objective. I can be observed and measured. And the collective weight of this objective evidence makes it definitive evidence.

And I already demonstrated the logical flaw of your position, by demonstrating that you can replace "God' with, literally anything - The Giant spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Space Hamster, Allah, Zeus, etc - and the alleged logic still holds.
Any premise that can be asserted without sufficient evidence, then God can be rejected without evidence. And the more outrageous the premise, the stronger the evidence must be in order to be sufficient.

Objective evidence exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that it means there is no creator.

 

[Czernobog]

You forgot a word there. I didn't say evidence. I said objective eveidence. Allow me to also include verifiable (as in repeatable) evidence.

How convenient.
Because your "evidence of his creation" is putting the cart before the horse. In order to call the universe the "creation of God" you must first prove the existence of God. After all, if God doesn't even exist, then how do you presume that he "created" the universe?
Assertion: God exists.
Assertion: The universe exists.
Assertion: God created the universe.
Conclusion: God exists.

You are making an argument by unproven assertion. Here's how you know your argument is logically flawed. Replace "God" with literally anything, and it still works:

Assertion: Invisible Giant Space Hamster exists.
Assertion: The Universe exists.
Assertion: The Giant Invisible Space Hamster created the Universe.
Conclusion: The Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists.

You can't use a presumed creation to prove the existence of an unproven creator. It is circular logic.

See post #88. That's all I need.

Hey. If you're happy with logically flawed reason, then you do you boo. Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

When you use the term objective evidence you are implying that you must be able to observe God and measure God which is what I have already addressed in my last post.

You can measure and observe what he has created so that evidence is objective evidence. So the evidence for God's existence is objective. I can be observed and measured. And the collective weight of this objective evidence makes it definitive evidence.

And I already demonstrated the logical flaw of your position, by demonstrating that you can replace "God' with, literally anything - The Giant spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Space Hamster, Allah, Zeus, etc - and the alleged logic still holds.
Any premise that can be asserted without sufficient evidence, then God can be rejected without evidence. And the more outrageous the premise, the stronger the evidence must be in order to be sufficient.

Objective evidence exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that it means there is no creator.

Yup. There is objective evidence that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster exists. You are free to argue what it means.

You take it on faith that the Giant Invisible Space Hamster is not your creator.