Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cheesecat wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:What do you hope to accomplish by telling people that God is fictional? Why does it matter so much to you that people believe it exists?

I'm not saying that at all, and I don't care for your strawman argument.

What I am saying is that in a situation where a student is asked to select a real person, then only real persons may be selected, and until can be proved otherwise, for the purposes of that assignment god is considered fictional, because the belief in the existence of god lies entirely in faith, not in fact, and to try and shoehorn god into an assignment about real people is to tacitly force the teacher to embrace your faith, or else render your assignment choice as invalid.

If you read my posts, you'll find that in no way am I suggesting someone should not hold their faith. They are welcome to, and generally, the number of gaks I give about it is exactly zero, one way or the other. However, I take a general offense to the mixing of faith with fact, and real with not-proven-to-be-real.

Sorry I just took your stuff out of context, but yeah for the purpose of the assignment when a teacher asks for you to talk about an "idol" they're talking about someone human, I agree on that (and pretty much everything I quoted here) just some confusion on my part about whether you're trying

to claim God isn't real in general (which is a useless exercise) but it seems you're being specifically talking about god in the context of the assignment (which I wasn't aware of). Btw, I'm atheist as well.

Thank you; I appreciate that.

...for what it's worth, however, I never said that I was an atheist.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
What I am saying is that in a situation where a student is asked to select a real person, then only real persons may be selected, and until can be proved otherwise, for the purposes of that assignment god is considered fictional, because the belief in the existence of god lies entirely in faith, not in fact, and to try and shoehorn god into an assignment about real people is to tacitly force the teacher to embrace your faith, or else render your assignment choice as invalid.

Is that the case here that the student was asked to select a real person? All the links from the OP just state that the girl was asked to write about her idol, or have I missed something that said the assignment had to be based on a real person?

Honestly, I do not know.

However, in my original post wherein I challenged Manchu on the issue, I suggested that the harm in selecting god as a subject for the assignment comes from the possibility that the teacher specified a real person

I do not know if the assignment actually called for it, but my original point was that the only problem with selecting god as an idol in this context comes from the possibility of the assignment requesting a real person, because it forces the teacher to either declare god to be an invalid selection, or else the teacher is tacitly forced to accept that god is real.

As far as I'm concerned, on its face the selection of god is perfectly fine if fictional characters are acceptable choices.

I guess I stand with azazel, on this case, but for different reasons. I mean, the kid did done derped. Having faith in God and in his benevolence is cool and all, but idolizing him for his achievements seems a bit dumb, since he is by definition perfect and all powerful.

B- at most.

 azazel the cat wrote:
...for what it's worth, however, I never said that I was an atheist.

Man, what is it with me today and misinterpreting people's posts (I guess the idea of you being critical about God made me assume you were atheist).

 Cheesecat wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
...for what it's worth, however, I never said that I was an atheist.

Man, what is it with me today and misinterpreting people's posts (I guess the idea of you being critical about God made me assume you were atheist).

I believe the point he was making was that he did not discuss his own personal beliefs... he has not said he is or is not religious.

Cheesecat wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
...for what it's worth, however, I never said that I was an atheist.

Man, what is it with me today and misinterpreting people's posts (I guess the idea of you being critical about God made me assume you were atheist).

Jury's out with me. I currently do not believe in gods, but I'm perfectly willing to change that opinion once I see some evidence for it.

*shakes fist*

Then we come to the question of how everything began. The thing I have always wondered, even as a Christian is where anything came from,the matter that makes everything up, God, you name it.
A whole lot of questions in my mind in that direction.

God isn't made of matter.

Physics offers an explanation for how matter was created.

The problem that has not been solved physically, is what existed before the creation of the universe, however that is partly a psychological problem.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
God isn't made of matter.

How do you know?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
God isn't made of matter.

How do you know?

My guess is mod magic

 Kilkrazy wrote:
God isn't made of matter.

Physics offers an explanation for how matter was created.

The problem that has not been solved physically, is what existed before the creation of the universe, however that is partly a psychological problem.

That's what I am talking about. What existed before any of this universe. I'd like to know what the physics explanation is, and if it is more than theory.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
God isn't made of matter.

How do you know?

If God was made of matter He would be a part of the universe, and therefore logically could not have created it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The physics explanation is that the universe is a thing in itself and there wasn't anything before it existed. Or else that it is an infinite series of universes that expand and contract without beginning or end.

Both these explanations are contrary to the working of human mental make-up.

The physics explanation smacks more of "maybe" than a definite "aha!".

The thing that could be explained here for God, though, is that if he is made of matter, he formed first and controlled the formation of the rest of matter.
It's definitely something that is going to fuel many debates and theories from now until forever.

I can see you wouldn't want to mark down a child's work about her god, but why is it being graded anyway? I don't recall grades and percentages being applied to fun primary level work like this. Seems a bit depressing. 'Timmy, draw you favourite hero. Oh you've drawn superman, nice but the proportions are bit off really and he needs more blue so in giving you 60%'

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
God isn't made of matter.

How do you know?

If God was made of matter He would be a part of the universe, and therefore logically could not have created it.

A seed persists in the tree, yet does not remain. God could be spent.

That is not the religious view, however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
The physics explanation smacks more of "maybe" than a definite "aha!".

The thing that could be explained here for God, though, is that if he is made of matter, he formed first and controlled the formation of the rest of matter.
It's definitely something that is going to fuel many debates and theories from now until forever.

You need to be able to understand a lot of difficult maths to comprehend the physics explanation, which I don't, however I get the impression that physics is getting close to an "aha!".

 azazel the cat wrote:
Honestly, I do not know.

However, in my original post wherein I challenged Manchu on the issue, I suggested that the harm in selecting god as a subject for the assignment comes from the possibility that the teacher specified a real person

I do not know if the assignment actually called for it, but my original point was that the only problem with selecting god as an idol in this context comes from the possibility of the assignment requesting a real person, because it forces the teacher to either declare god to be an invalid selection, or else the teacher is tacitly forced to accept that god is real.

As far as I'm concerned, on its face the selection of god is perfectly fine if fictional characters are acceptable choices.

Thanks for the reply. Going by the article, and the links, there was precious little background to clarify whether the assignment specified a real person.

My own opinion is that even if the criteria was that a real person was to be selected, that having the child write about God should not have been a huge deal. It is perfectly reasonable to respect another's faith in a supreme being without having to agree to the existence of the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If God was made of matter He would be a part of the universe, and therefore logically could not have created it.

What about energy as it can neither be created, nor destroyed?

(please note, above post based on GCSE level physics from about 15 years ago )

Energy can be converted to matter, and vice versa. They are merely different expressions of the physical being of the universe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the homework was to write about a real human being -- an historical figure, for example -- as an idol, then the girl should have lost a mark for failing to read that part of the question.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If God was made of matter He would be a part of the universe, and therefore logically could not have created it.

God can't be completely outside the universe because god supposedly interacts with the universe (granting prayers, etc). And even if god is entirely outside the universe how do you know that there isn't matter outside the universe?

That is not the religious view, however.

IOW, "because I said so".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is not the religious view, however.

It's not proeminent, but Aristotle's view of God essentially had him spent and left to contemplate everything.

In regards to creation, the essential claims of theism is that 1) there is a creator and 2) he is intelligent. "Intelligence" could mean a lot of things. Our Judeo-Christian background kinda steers us in the way of imagining God as a subjective intelligence, but the other different avenues have been speculated in metaphysics. The view of God as a physical seed, or as the totality of the material universe is called hylotheism, and has been defended by Parmenides.

Edit : Now that would be awesome. The little girl comes in and hands over her assignement describing why she idolises the prime mover.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If God was made of matter He would be a part of the universe, and therefore logically could not have created it.

God can't be completely outside the universe because god supposedly interacts with the universe (granting prayers, etc). And even if god is entirely outside the universe how do you know that there isn't matter outside the universe?

That is not the religious view, however.

IOW, "because I said so".

As you used a computer on the internet, you have interacted with a personality who was not inside your computer.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I cannot stress enough how incorrect you are on this.

I think you think I'm arguing with you about the teapot, which is only half right. The null hypothesis issues is not material to this discussion. Rather, I am addressing the idea that we cannot move forward because you keep arguing that God is fictional because he is fictional.

Fortunately, Killkrazy has helpfully restated the last meaningful point made in our discussion:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If God was made of matter He would be a part of the universe, and therefore logically could not have created it.

And here is the context:

 Manchu wrote:
A fact (in the modern sense) is indisputable; the existence of God is disputable; hence the existence of God cannot be considered a fact.

 Manchu wrote:
The question seems to be, does the non-factual nature of God's existence render God a fictional character? I think not. Remember, our definition of "fact" is something that is indisputable. But we do not say that everything disputable is a matter of fiction.

 azazel the cat wrote:

What I am saying is that in a situation where a student is asked to select a real person, then only real persons may be selected, and until can be proved otherwise, for the purposes of that assignment god is considered fictional, because the belief in the existence of god lies entirely in faith, not in fact, and to try and shoehorn god into an assignment about real people is to tacitly force the teacher to embrace your faith, or else render your assignment choice as invalid.

Except that in this case, we really don't know the exact wording on the assignment. I mean, if the assignment merely read, "who is your hero/idol/who you look up to" then there is nothing at all to suggest that there is an implied order of "real people only". Also, it is not covered in the article, but what if one of the other kids' in class used Iron Man as their hero? By your logic they should be made to redo the assignment for that as well (of course, because its a "hot topic" item, we'll never hear if someone did do that in class, only the God thing)


One thing that I can almost guarantee, is that the teacher will specify in more detail, or will accept whatever comes across her desk on that assignment next year.

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I cannot stress enough how incorrect you are on this.

I think you think I'm arguing with you about the teapot, which is only half right. The null hypothesis issues is not material to this discussion. Rather, I am addressing the idea that we cannot move forward because you keep arguing that God is fictional because he is fictional.

Fortunately, Killkrazy has helpfully restated the last meaningful point made in our discussion:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If God was made of matter He would be a part of the universe, and therefore logically could not have created it.

And here is the context:

 Manchu wrote:
A fact (in the modern sense) is indisputable; the existence of God is disputable; hence the existence of God cannot be considered a fact.

 Manchu wrote:
The question seems to be, does the non-factual nature of God's existence render God a fictional character? I think not. Remember, our definition of "fact" is something that is indisputable. But we do not say that everything disputable is a matter of fiction.

Manchu, here is your fallacy (and an understandable one, given your background): the underlined begs the question, because it assumes that god is not a creation of your imagination and nothing more. In order to actually participate in this discussion beyond the point you current have, you are basically going to be required to question your own belief system; even set it aside temporarily to get yourself in a mindset wherein your baseline is something other than a firm belief that god is real. Because at this point, you have very distinctly demonstrated circular reasoning to the exact degree that would be expected.

And you ARE arguing about the teapot. God is the teapot. You are claiming god is real, thus the burden of demonstrating so is on you; it is not on me to disprove it.

When we talk about facts, it is up to the person positing the fact to prove it correct; it is not on anyone else to disprove it. Thus, if you claim god is real, it is up to you to prove that s/he is; it is not up to anyone else to disprove your claim. This has been stated time and again in this thread, and so aptly that the majority of the posters have moved on at this point.

If you claim that god is real, then it is your job to prove yourself not to be a liar. Otherwise, I can just do this:

"I am Jesus Christ."

Now, according to your circular reasoning, I am Jesus Christ because I am Jesus Christ. And if the burden of proving this claim is not on me for having made the claim, then your belief paradigms suggest that you now believe that I am Jesus Christ until such a time as you can factually prove that I am not.


Thus, things are considered fictional and not real, until such a time as they have been proven to be real. Hence, why the student should not be allowed to select god for the assignment if the assignment called for a real person.


EDIT: Anyway, Manchu, I'll continue this with you if you absolutely insist, but as far as I'm concerned you've already been hit with the coup de grace and have now definitively begun going in circles, as you're now dredging up quotes from our discussion that I have already responded to directly, and you have been pretending that I did not address them decisively. I recognize that is is difficult -if not impossible- for you to give on on your belief, and convincing you to do so is not my intent.

All I'm asking is that you recognize the fact that anytime you put someone in a position wherein they must accept god to be anything other than a work of fiction, you are demanding that they embrace your beliefs.

If the assignment called for a real person, and the student selected god, then this is exactly the demand that the student created, likely without even knowing it.




And I hope you will let that serve as the conclusion to this discussion.





















Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Except that in this case, we really don't know the exact wordig on the assignment. I mean, if the assignment merely read, "who is your hero/idol/who you look up to" then there is nothing at all to suggest that there is an implied order of "real people only". Also, it is not covered in the article, but what if one of the other kids' in class used Iron Man as their hero? By your logic they should be made to redo the assignment for that as well (of course, because its a "hot topic" item, we'll never hear if someone did do that in class, only the God thing)

I've addressed this NO LESS THAN THREE TIMES IN THIS THREAD, including in my opening statement.

You have not demonstrated that God is fictional; you have merely assumed it (moreover without even having demonstrated an understanding of fiction). I have not claimed that God's existence is a fact so your latest sortie is also irrelevant to this discussion.

Manchu wrote:You have not demonstrated that God is fictional; you have merely assumed it

EXACTLY!

I don't need to demonstrate that god is fictional; YOU NEED TO DEMONSTRATE S/HE IS NOT. God being fictional is the baseline assumption until it can be proved otherwise. That is exactly what I have been saying all along. That's why I brought up Russell's Teapot, that's why I explained to you how the Null Hypothesis works, and honestly, the fact that you keep pretending those concepts are not real is the reason why I dislike having conversations on the nature of reality with people who believe in magic.

Manchu, the entire debate is about a little girl potentially claiming that god's existence is a fact in her school assignment. Our debate is about the problem of selecting god for an assignment about a real person. The instant you select god for it, you are claiming god to be real.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu, the entire debate is about a little girl potentially claiming that god's existence is a fact in her school assignment. Our debate is about the problem of selecting god for an assignment about a real person. The instant you select god for it, you are claiming god to be real.

Where in the assignment did it say the person had to be real? Would you still side with the teacher if, say some boy said Tony Stark was his hero and accepted it, but not this girl's?

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu, the entire debate is about a little girl potentially claiming that god's existence is a fact in her school assignment. Our debate is about the problem of selecting god for an assignment about a real person. The instant you select god for it, you are claiming god to be real.

Where in the assignment did it say the person had to be real? Would you still side with the teacher if, say some boy said Tony Stark was his hero and accepted it, but not this girl's?

I suggest you read my previous posts in order to find several answers for your first question, as I have explicitly answered it no less than three times already.

If the assignment called for a real person, then Tony Stark* is just as invalid an answer as is god, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter and Starscream.


*assuming, of course, that Tony Stark is of Marvel comics, and not just a coincidently-named cool uncle or something.

Hm the posts getting a little bit off topic.

The teacher was in the wrong, Religion is a touchy subject but the school system should respect peoples believes.
If the teacher would have rejected my homework on the dude i would have been upset, not realy the Dude abides.

God = the universe! (watch babylon 5)

 Manchu wrote:
You have not demonstrated that God is fictional; you have merely assumed it (moreover without even having demonstrated an understanding of fiction). I have not claimed that God's existence is a fact so your latest sortie is also irrelevant to this discussion.

Any sentence in which we attach a name to a predicate and must project the statement on the empirical world to derive it's truth value is a fact (allowing for negative facts ; if that create too large of a base for you this can be deflated).
Any sentence in which we attach a name to a predicate and must project the statement on an ensemble of other statements to derive it's truth value, and never on the empirical world, is a fiction.