Khaaaaaaaaan!

1. Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator. I have presented this paper at the !st Internation Conference on Revival of Traditional Yoga, organised at the Institute of Yoga, Lonavla, Pune, India in January 2006.

2. In Scientific Terminology Source of Gravitational Wave is God. I have presented this paper at 2nd World Conference on Vedic Science organised in Banaras Hindu University, Varansi, India in February 2007.

I don’t know how you could possibly do this. In fact I think it is impossible. Because all a person has to do is define a being that does X, point out X, and then say it is proof that the being exists. The only way to disprove the being is to demonstrate a different causal chain leading to X, thus showing that the deity was not the source.

So all people do is find things that we don’t know the cause for, invent a deity behind it, and voila!

For example, I believe in the gravity God. You don’t know what causes gravity? Well, guess what? I do! It’s the gravity God, so until you can demonstrate where gravity comes from, I am justified in believing in the gravity God.

You have successfully argued that a transcendent god is not only irrelevant, but can and does cause unnecessary strife and conflict, and maybe that’s all you are trying to do here.

That’s all I was trying to do.

But if you are using this for an argument against the existence of gods (as your title implies), I find the argument lacking.

I’m simply trying to point out that if a supernatural realm exists, we cannot comment on it, except to speak of it in terms related to the natural realm – which is basically admitting ignorance on the subject, so nobody has a right to say their definition or description of anything related to this realm is accurate. Ergo: nobody should ever get hurt because some fucking idiot claims knowledge about a supernatural subject.

And Kenny, thanks for the links and info. I generally run under the assumption that somebody has already thought of the things I write about these days. It’s good to put a name to the concept

Hmm. I’ll admit that My point was that nothing can be said about God or gods, even if one exists, is the exact reason that I left the preisthood. It’s an imprtant point to make. But I think that you need to go one point further in order to make it. You need to also argue that there is no evidence that any god(s) interact with the universe. You have successfully argued that a transcendent god is not only irrelevant, but can and does cause unnecessary strife and conflict, and maybe that’s all you are trying to do here. But if you are using this for an argument against the existence of gods (as your title implies), I find the argument lacking.

Admittedly, I’m beginning to thing that the lack is not in your argument, but that there was an excess in my expectations.

So by reading the first ten words of the bible, the only conclusion is that bible inerrancy = 0, and the bible = 0, so anyone quoting the bible is quoting historical fiction and can safely be ignored.

So I agree fully that god = 0.

The arguments from presuppositionalists and other TAG-users parallels the argument concerning “Theistic Activism”: the position that abstract objects (nonspatiotemporal, nonmental objects [e.g. mathematical objects like numbers]) are dependant on God and that mathematics is evidence of (or identical to) God itself.

Bill Craig rejects Theistic Activism for the reason given above; if God “is” mathematics, then it means that God’s nature (“threeness”) is prior to the Trinity, which is absurd.

I suggest you become familiar with the literature on Theistic Activism to become more understanding of the nature of the issues at hand:

I recommend:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/#2

http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-abstract-objects-are-nasty-problem.html

and Matthew Davidson’s
“A Demonstration Against Theistic Activism”
(http://philosophy.csusb.edu/~mld/Demo%20Against%20Th.%20Act.pdf)

The book sounds fascinating. I did not realize 0 was such a hot topic.

As for the argument, it is slightly tongue in cheek and at the same time a little more thought out than I think you give me credit for.

If you take (1) to its next logical conclusion, then language cannot describe anything supernatural. And if language is useless to describe the supernatural, well… language might as well be completely natural. And if we are not capable of speaking of the supernatural, I think it’s safe to conclude that we are anything but. Hell, then language is useless to talk about it.

These arguments can help show how certain understandings of gods leave those gods irrelevant to human life, but that’s about it, theistically.

With all respect, I don’t think you understood the point of my post. My point was that nothing can be said about God or gods, even if one exists, except to produce discord among men. And those who do produce discord by their claims about deities are premature, for only with a little thought one can simply – and indeed elegantly – show the foolishness of the notion.

We are trapped in time and space, and yet wonderfully equipped for it. Let’s enjoy it while we have breath and be thankful for the beautiful surprise of life.

Have you ever read Zero: the biography of a dangerous idea? I’m finding it very interesting.

As for the anti-transcendence argument, I’m not sure what your arguments support other than:

1) Language does not exist to describe anything independent of the universe’s existence.

2) No human is capable of describing something without language.

These arguments can help show how certain understandings of gods leave those gods irrelevant to human life, but that’s about it, theistically.