Please, OverclockedJesus, no more trollbait or cherry-picked quotes. I want to hear your position on this with defense. I want to know how the impossibility of a square circle applies to the God debate.

Here, I’ll even get you started.

The only reason we know that a square circle can’t exist is because we know squares and circles exist, and we can define them. It is the combination that makes the existence of a square circle impossible. We can go two ways from here:

1) To apply this to “God” we would have to not only be able to exactly define God (which we can’t; you and I both agree on this) but also show which “parts” of “God” contradict themselves. In order to show that these parts would inherently contradict themselves, these different aspects would have to be shown to exist in the first place, which is a road I don’t feel you’d be comfortable going down.

Claiming that the impossibility of certain aspects of “God” makes “God” logically impossible has nothing to do with your square circle analogy, and begs the question of knowledge of everything that is possible in the universe.

2) If you leave “wiggle-room” in the definition of God, or claim that the impossibility of defining God means the likelihood of any “God” actually existing is nil, then the whole analogy breaks down. Without the absolute definitions, asking me to draw a square circle is like asking me to draw a korfor fribnab. I could draw an infinite amount of korfor fribnabs, and be wrong every time, but unless you know exactly what a korfor fribnab is, you can say nothing about the existence of one.

Hobart Bliggity Posted:

No no no no, I understand the square circle thing. It’s your job now to extend the metaphor to the existence of “God”.

I did. No more lies and trolling from you or I will report you again.

Of course, I could be wrong about this and you’re simply ignorant but posing as if you know something, which is far worse. So you could be a liar, poseur, or a troll. Which one or combination are you?

Eh? I stopped reading at about page 8. Seems some of you idiots still can’t differentiate between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism, referring to the former as “atheism” and the latter as “agnosticism”. I’ll break it down for you here:

A/gnosticism refers to whether or not you know something for sure, in this case the existence of God. Gnosticism is utterly ridiculous whether you’re a theist or an atheist, because it is impossible to know with complete certainty that God does or doesn’t exist. Calling yourself “agnostic” doesn’t differentiate between agnostic theism (what all rational believers practice; Nietzsche claims that true faith cannot exist without doubt) and an agnostic atheist, though the latter is usually the implication.

A/theism refers to whether or not you believe in something, in this case the existence of God. A lack of belief in something’s existence does not imply belief in something’s non-existence. Saying that atheists believe that God doesn’t exist is sort of like saying that “not collecting stamps” is a hobby. There’s simply no belief one way or the other. I would say that this is really the default stance, given that somebody hasn’t been introduced to religion. If you’d never heard of the idea of a God, you obviously wouldn’t believe in it, or really give it much thought at all. This is what’s at the heart of atheism.

If you’re claiming to be “agnostic” and suggesting that this is in some way superior to being an “atheist”, what you really are is a “moron”. You are likely an agnostic atheist, and it’s equally likely that the person you’re being condescending towards is an agnostic atheist, as well. It’s unfortunate that I have to group myself with people who can’t understand such a simple concept, but I suppose there are idiots in all camps of “The God Debate”. I myself am an agnostic atheist, and if it weren’t for my parents trying to get me to go to church with them when I visit over the holidays, or dumbbum forum threads (like this one) where trolls pretend to be gnostic atheists and the people who rise to their bait display complete ineptitude at defending their own positions, I really wouldn’t give the idea of a God a second thought.

TL;DR:

Almost everybody is agnostic, you’re a dumbbum for thinking that applying the term to yourself makes you better than other atheists, and the world would be a better place if people stopped waiting for the boogie man to solve their problems for them.

Hobart Bliggity Posted:

I don’t disagree with you. To say that the universe has always existed and will always exist is a true statement, since “existence” is defined by the “presence” of the universe. All I’m trying to say is that this constriction has no impact on the “existence” of a “God”.

What’s your definition of God then?

BobTheSqueakyWeasel Posted:

Eh? I stopped reading at about page 8. Seems some of you idiots still can’t differentiate between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism, referring to the former as “atheism” and the latter as “agnosticism”. I’ll break it down for you here:

A/gnosticism refers to whether or not you know something for sure, in this case the existence of God. Gnosticism is utterly ridiculous whether you’re a theist or an atheist, because it is impossible to know with complete certainty that God does or doesn’t exist. Calling yourself “agnostic” doesn’t differentiate between agnostic theism (what all rational believers practice; Nietzsche claims that true faith cannot exist without doubt) and an agnostic atheist, though the latter is usually the implication.

A/theism refers to whether or not you believe in something, in this case the existence of God. A lack of belief in something’s existence does not imply belief in something’s non-existence. Saying that atheists believe that God doesn’t exist is sort of like saying that “not collecting stamps” is a hobby. There’s simply no belief one way or the other. I would say that this is really the default stance, given that somebody hasn’t been introduced to religion. If you’d never heard of the idea of a God, you obviously wouldn’t believe in it, or really give it much thought at all. This is what’s at the heart of atheism.

If you’re claiming to be “agnostic” and suggesting that this is in some way superior to being an “atheist”, what you really are is a “moron”. You are likely an agnostic atheist, and it’s equally likely that the person you’re being condescending towards is an agnostic atheist, as well. It’s unfortunate that I have to group myself with people who can’t understand such a simple concept, but I suppose there are idiots in all camps of “The God Debate”. I myself am an agnostic atheist, and if it weren’t for my parents trying to get me to go to church with them when I visit over the holidays, or dumbbum forum threads (like this one) where trolls pretend to be gnostic atheists and the people who rise to their bait display complete ineptitude at defending their own positions, I really wouldn’t give the idea of a God a second thought.

TL;DR:

Almost everybody is agnostic, you’re a dumbbum for thinking that applying the term to yourself makes you better than other atheists, and the world would be a better place if people stopped waiting for the boogie man to solve their problems for them.

OJ is claiming to know, with 100% certainty, that God does not exist, but I’m the troll here so your synopsis is a bit off.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

Yeah, you actually are.

Because you know with 100% certainty that there are no square circles, don’t you? You really do grasp the concept of the a priori—you were taught it in math. Yet somehow you feel the need to disavow that knowledge and troll.

How sad.

Extend the analogy please.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

I’ve done all I can. The rest is up to you.

You want me to form your defense for you? Ok sure that’s how these things work.

Just admit you have nothing and this can all be over.

ps how can you say with a straight face that knowledge about the impossibility of square circles is a priori?

OverclockedJesus Posted:

No; I want you to start thinking. I want you to remove your mental block.

This isn’t how this works. You can’t just say “baseless bumumption irrelevant analogy figure it out”.

Hobart Bliggity Posted:

This isn’t how this works.

Yes, it is.

Hobart Bliggity Posted:

You can’t just say “baseless bumumption irrelevant analogy figure it out”.

Good thing I didn’t say that, then.

Now if you’re done with your bumhurt, it’s time to start acting like an adult.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Nope, I’m arguing simply that a definite answer about “God” is impossible. By claiming that God is 100% impossible, the burden of proof resides on you.

Stop dodging and face the music.